Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — EU Aid Programmes

Mr. Owen Paterson: If she will make a statement on EU aid programmes. [157642]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): European Community aid programmes have underperformed badly for many years. They have been poorly focused, with unclear objectives. Unfortunately, the previous Government increased the proportion of British aid going through the European Union from 12 to 30 per cent. and took no action to improve effectiveness. We have, in contrast, worked to get agreement on a radical, poverty focused reform agenda. That is now in place and implementation has begun. We will maintain the pressure for more rapid progress.

Mr. Paterson: The Blak report published by the European Parliament on 28 March, made a devastating critique of the delivery of aid by the EU. If the reforms are not working, what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that member states can spend more aid more effectively themselves?

Clare Short: I do not believe that anyone has made a more devastating critique than I have. The difference between Conservative and Labour Members—especially myself—is that we are doing something about the problem. The record of the hon. Gentleman's Government was to increase the spend and do nothing about effectiveness. Disgraceful!

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the European Union is giving sufficient importance to delivering primary education to all school children throughout the world, which is one of the main objectives of the British Government?

Clare Short: In the renegotiation of the Lomé agreement, now the Cotonou agreement, we obtained a commitment to the international development targets which includes the objective of achieving universal primary education. We have been involved with the EC in reforming its delivery mechanisms so that it can put its

money behind such objectives. Progress is being made, but much more is needed much faster. However, I am pleased that the EU is moving on its objectives.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Secretary of State for her response on Myanmar. Is it the case that the United Kingdom is co-operating in and leading the work there? Is France involved in work in Thailand to create employment opportunities to rescue youngsters and others from prostitution?

Clare Short: My ministerial colleagues with responsibility for European Union development work would say that the UK has been leading the pressure and the effort that is put into such work. We published a reform agenda, much of which has been delivered. It is agreed and has to be rolled out across the world. No one should give up on their efforts. The situation is bad and reforming something that is malfunctioning takes time and effort. However, that is moving forward with, of course, the agreement of member states.
On French co-operation in Thailand, I do not know whether they are involved in rescuing young people involved in the sex industry. However, I shall find out and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that 28 April is workers memorial day. This year's theme is the worldwide tragedy caused by the use of asbestos. Will she use her office to press to ensure that EU aid is not used to fund capital projects that use asbestos? Will she also press for the sensible implementation over time of a worldwide ban on asbestos?

Clare Short: I certainly give my hon. Friend that undertaking. I do not know whether the EU has rules about the use of asbestos in capital projects. I hope that it does, but I shall check and we will do all we can to deliver on a worldwide agreement not to use asbestos. I was in Sverdlovsk in Russia fairly recently. It produces asbestos and people there boasted about the large amounts that it could produce. I firmly pointed out the danger of that material. I shall look into the issues that he raises and get back to him.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: In the Secretary of State's first year of office, she said that she was taking action on the EU aid budget and that she was
determined to ensure that this is spent more effectively."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 91W.]
In her second year of office, she told us that the good thing about something as dreadful as the EU aid budget is that it is quite easy to improve and that things can only get better. However, the report on her third year of office reveals the truth that things have got worse.
The Ruhle report from the European Parliament shows that in 1999, for the first time ever, more than half the EU aid budget went to countries that are not low income or the least developed. Out of the top 10 countries that get EU aid, only one was poor. Instead of making cheap jibes and blaming the Tories, will she have the courage to


admit that she has failed to keep her promises on EU aid, or is she just like the rest of her party—all spin and no delivery?

Clare Short: The hon. Lady gets worse, which is sad because one would think that in four years she would have learned something. I can tell her that 1999 was the second year, and anyone working in the field throughout the world who receives EU aid knows that major reform is in place. The situation has started to get better but it is very bad, and rather like her dreadful party it will take a long time to get better.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIV/AIDS

Mr. Neil Gerrard: What outcomes she will aim to achieve from the special General Assembly of the United Nations on HIV/AIDS. [157643]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Our aim at the United Nations General Assembly special session on HIV/AIDS is for a short, tightly focused and action-oriented political declaration that implements across the world effective programmes for prevention and care, building on the successful reduction of infection levels in countries such as Uganda and Thailand. As my hon. Friend knows, we have invited a representative of the British voluntary sector to join the UK delegation at UNGASS, and I would like to now invite my hon. Friend, as chairman of the all-party AIDS group, to join the delegation on behalf of parliamentarians.

Mr. Gerrard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she join me in welcoming the withdrawal by pharmaceutical companies of their court action in South Africa? Does she agree that it creates an opportunity for the UN to reaffirm the right of developing countries compulsorily to license patents where there is a national emergency so that they can have improved access to drugs, particularly to deal with opportunistic infections? However, that should be done in the context of dealing with the social and economic consequences of HIV, and not just providing medical care.

Clare Short: I certainly welcome the withdrawal of that court action, which was always ill advised, but it does not mean that we suddenly have an answer to the problem. Even at cost price, anti-retroviral drugs are more expensive than most African countries can afford. They might cost only $1 a day, but most countries in sub-Saharan Africa spend less than $5 a head per year on health care and most poor, infected people are not in touch with any health care system, as my hon. Friend knows. We need international co-operation between the pharmaceutical companies, the Governments of developing countries and the international community to put in place basic health care systems and deliver treatment for opportunistic infections, such as TB, which is killing more people than many other illnesses. I hope now that the court case is out of the way, we can make progress, but I hope also that no one will pretend that anti-retrovirals are the answer, because they are not.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I welcome what the Secretary of State has just said. There is indeed a great danger that drugs could be seen as the answer to the AIDS pandemic, but they could make it worse if they are not

used properly. Does the right hon. Lady agree that while education and condom use are the only real answer in the short term, a vaccine against AIDS is the only long-term solution? The international AIDS vaccine initiative needs $1 billion to further its trials and continue research, so when she goes to the United Nations in June, will she persuade other Governments and our own to increase their contributions to ensure that the vaccine becomes a reality?

Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Lady. One thing that everyone should know is that infection rates are dropping in many countries. Uganda has led the way with public education and prevention work. Infection rates among young people in Uganda have gone down, and the same is happening in Kenya and Zambia. Things can be done if countries get organised, inform their people, supply condoms and so on. We have been supporting a lot of that work, and there is hope. We should implement all the lessons of success.
I agree that there can be a vaccine, and that is the view of the scientists. The hon. Lady knows that the UK Government were the first to contribute to the international AIDS vaccine initiative. I understand that there have been many other contributions since, and a shortage of funds is not currently the problem, but I shall check that and do all that I can to ensure that there are sufficient funds to find a vaccine as quickly as possible.

Mr. John McFall: My right hon. Friend will be aware that this week 50 African heads of state and ex-President Bill Clinton are meeting in Nigeria to set the scene for the UN conference in June. She will be aware also of the remarks of the Minister of Health in Nigeria, who said that no one will escape the devastation in Africa, not least the 50 million who will die in the next decade as a result of HIV and AIDS. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights voted yesterday to support a Brazilian resolution for universal help for everyone with HIV and AIDS, so will my right hon. Friend ensure that the British Government give practical expression to that resolution?

Clare Short: I am not familiar with the Brazilian resolution. However, I repeat that most poor and infected people in Africa are not in touch with any health care system; if drugs were free, they would not get them. Since 1997, we have committed £1 billion to help support the building of primary health care systems across the world. That is what we need, along with prevention, care for those who are infected and treatment of opportunistic infections. We must then take up pharmaceutical companies' offer of cheap, anti-retroviral drugs, when that can be done responsibly. We are working on that strongly in the international community. I am glad that there is now a much bigger commitment from African heads of state than previously, so I hope that we can make faster progress.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much private conversation in the Chamber.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to read the report of the Select Committee on International Development on HIV/AIDS? Hon. Members may not be aware that 2.8 million people died of HIV/AIDS last year, three


times the number of people who died as a result of murder, violence and war; we are therefore dealing with an important question.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that she will be increasing the Department's expenditure on HIV/AIDS which, at the moment, amounts to only £1 million per annum? Will she reverse the decline in expenditure on HIV/AIDS in southern Africa? Has she concluded the programme that she was seeking to devise on a new compact or strategy within the Department to tackle the HIV/AIDS problem in Africa and throughout the world?

Clare Short: I have read a summary of the report, and I am afraid that the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted are, unusually, wrong. My Department spent £100 million last year, not £1 million. We shall respond in the normal way; there is obviously some confusion. However, I am happy to confirm that those figures are wrong. We are a leading player in the international system, spend considerably and the budget has been growing. I am sorry that there has been a misunderstanding.
On the written strategy, we already have strategies on improving the health of the poorest people, as the hon. Gentleman knows, including our work on HIV/AIDS. A departmental strategy just on HIV/AIDS is about to be published; to be honest, I threw back the previous one, because it was written in impenetrable jargon which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a problem in this area of work, if not all others.
May I end with a genuine expression of respect for the hon. Gentleman's fantastic contribution to this area of work and his fine chairmanship of the Select Committee? We shall miss him greatly; I admire and respect enormously the work that he has done.

Barbara Follett: What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of calls from some of the large pharmaceutical companies for a Marshall plan to combat HIV/AIDS?

Clare Short: I have had considerable talks with the pharmaceutical companies and their embarrassment about the court case may have been helpful. Those who call for an end to all intellectual property rules are not being helpful, as we need a global agreement to provide drugs and basic health care systems in the poorest countries. We can then provide drugs cheaply at cost or even less, but that has to be in return for a deal involving higher prices in developed countries so that pharmaceutical companies can get some return on their investment, particularly their massive research budgets. Otherwise, we will not get new cures for things like malaria and other diseases of poverty.
I am therefore hopeful that we can get a global agreement—if that is what my hon. Friend means by a Marshall plan—involving Governments, international financial institutions, purchasing funds, agreements on intellectual property and agreements that drugs that are provided. cheaply to the poorest countries will not be exported to the richest, otherwise we will dry up the funding of research. I am hopeful that we will get there.

Mr. Gary Streeter: May I strongly agree with the Secretary of State in her tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who has chaired the Select Committee

magnificently for the past four years? On that point, will she reconsider her response to the report, of which she has read the summary, but not the main body? Whether the figures are, or are not, correct, does she not accept that the carefully considered report shows that there has been a dramatic decline in the United Kingdom's bilateral aid spend on HIV/AIDS in Africa over the past three years? Given the importance of the HIV/AIDS epidemic to people in many African countries, will she reconsider and make sure that that decline in spending is reversed in the next few years?

Clare Short: No. My respect for the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford is second to none. There will be the proper and normal response to the Select Committee's report. The Committee has produced many high-quality reports. However, the figures are false, as are the claims that are based on them. We shall provide full details so that the hon. Gentleman and others who read them will be persuaded that the figures are wrong.

Mr. Streeter: I shall make one further point before the Secretary of State goes to the United Nations to discuss HIV/AIDS in Africa. Does the right hon. Lady agree that partly the success in Uganda is because donor Governments have worked closely with the Government of Uganda in agreeing a strategy for that country? There has been more success in Uganda because of the acceptance of that strategy by the Ugandan Government, who are working with bilateral donors? Does the right hon. Lady accept that, as is so often the case, our bilateral spend is much more effective than much of the money that is spent through multilateral agencies? Will she not take the route of giving more to the UN and spending less bilaterally, and ensure that we are at the forefront of the attack on HIV/AIDS in Africa? We are looking forward to seeing the strategy document, which I hope will put the UK at the forefront in tackling a dreadful disease that is killing so many people in Africa.

Clare Short: If the hon. Gentleman discusses these matters with those who are working on them in the international community, I am happy to say that I think he will find that the UK is seen to be at the forefront. I agree that when Governments give the lead, from president through to every village in public education, there is behaviour change, of the sort that we have seen among young people in Uganda. When Governments give the lead—more are doing so in Africa now—we can be more effective.
I do not agree that we should be divisive and say that bilateral is always best. We should work bilaterally where we have our historical obligations, and we should learn our lessons. We should be working also to make contributions to the multilateral system so as to make it more efficient. We should aim for an efficient and competent international development system that is working throughout the world. If we confine ourselves to the UK effort, there will be many countries where we do not make a contribution. Working as we have been, our influence spreads, as does the improvement in effectiveness throughout the world. That is the right approach.

Mr. Tony Worthington: When my right hon. Friend goes to the UN General Assembly, will she say that when the target of


0.7 per cent. of gross national product was set for aid, that was pre-AIDS? We now need much more than a contribution of 0.7 per cent to tackle the problems in southern Africa. If we are to put in the basic services, every country that is in a position to do so will have massively to increase its aid.

Clare Short: As my hon. Friend will know, the world is going in the opposite direction. We have recently had the new preliminary figures from the Development Assistance committee in Paris, which monitors the world's performance. I am pleased to say that the UK is contributing 0.31 per cent. and is the world's fourth largest donor. That is a record for our country. However, overall international contributions are declining. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is terrible, especially in the face of the scourge of HIV/AIDS. We must do more to mobilise international public opinion. Public opinion is changing in the UK, and so we must make our contribution to the international effort. I agree with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — St. Helena

Mr. Andrew George: What recent assessment she has made of the transport infrastructure needs of the island of St. Helena. [157645]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): We are currently awaiting the results of a comparative study of air and sea access which will identify the least-cost solution to the island's future international passenger and cargo transport needs. The final report is expected shortly and its recommendations will then need to be discussed with the St. Helena Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed, subject to the outcome of the study, that the Department for International Development would provide funding equal to the least capital cost option—that is either the cost of replacing RMS St. Helena or the estimated capital cost of an airport and related infrastructure.

Mr. George: In the Secretary of State's written reply to me on 27 March, I was told that the Department would be responding to the report that was available then within a week. The governor of St. Helena, David Hollamby, is in London this week. Surely there is an opportunity to make more rapid progress. What timetable can the Minister produce so that the matter can be resolved as soon as possible?

Mr. Mullin: In the written reply, the hon. Gentleman was told that we would comment on a draft of the report within a week. I understand that that happened. We expect the report to be delivered shortly. The matter will then need to be discussed with the Government of St. Helena. When we have done that, we will reach a conclusion.

Jean Corston: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1999, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association annual conference was held in Trinidad and Tobago? Most delegates were able to get home quite quickly, even those who lived in some of the Pacific archipelagos, whereas the St. Helena delegate said that it

would take him three and a half weeks to get home. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not assist the viability of St. Helena?

Mr. Mullin: The problem is under careful consideration. We must take full account of the costs involved. St. Helena is second among the overseas territories in terms of the amount of aid that we already give. There must, of course, be limits, which is why we say that we will fund the least cost option. The matter is being carefully thought about. Watch this space.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does not the Minister recognise that hon. Members from all parts of the House who have met St. Helena delegates at Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences over the years consider it outrageous that people should have to travel three and a half weeks by sea from a Commonwealth country to Cardiff to exercise their democratic rights? At the beginning of a new century, is it not right that the Government should recognise their responsibilities to democratic representatives in Commonwealth countries, by ensuring proper air connections?

Mr. Mullin: St. Helena is a very remote island. That is a fact with which we all have to cope. The time taken to get there is the same under this Government as it was under the previous Government. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The disruption is unfair.

Mr. Mullin: We are carefully considering the options. We are doing that along with the Government of St. Helena, but there is no magic solution to the problem. It is a matter of geographical location, which not even the Government whom the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) supported were able to resolve.

Oral Answers to Questions — World Bank Business Partnership

Mr. Barry Sheerman: When she will next meet the Development Committee of the European Parliament to discuss the World Bank's business partnership for development. [157646]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We have met on a number of occasions with the European Parliament development committee to try to encourage stronger support for the reform of EC development efforts. In particular, we need to change EC financial regulations so that the Commission is able to collaborate with other international development institutions without first undertaking an audit. It seems fairly shocking that the EC of all bodies audits all other international organisations, whose performance is probably rather better, before it gives any money through them.

Mr. Sheerman: My right hon. Friend is aware of the excellent support given by her Department to the World Bank's new business partnership for development, and the great success that many such projects are having, including the one that I will chair from June this year. As my right hon. Friend knows, by 2010 6 million people in the developing world will die not of AIDS, but because


of traffic accidents, and 60 million will be seriously injured. I hope that she will speak straightforwardly to the European Parliament and the European Commission so that they can play an active part in supporting those innovations to stop such unnecessary loss of life and serious injury, and do that in partnership with business.

Clare Short: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being selected as chair of the global road safety partnership. He is right: 10 million people a year throughout the world are badly injured in road accidents, 70 per cent. of them in developing countries. In developing countries, that does not mean just disability; it often throws families into poverty. It is an issue that we need to take more seriously. Numbers will rise and we must all co-operate with the important World Bank work. I wish my hon. Friend well with his efforts.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Lady nevertheless agree that the World Bank partnerships are extremely valuable, and that they deserve support, commitment and, above all, time to be made to work?

Clare Short: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. All such partnerships are about working with the private sector to promote development—for example, water, sanitation and better transport systems. The public sector cannot afford what the developing world needs in all those areas, but with collaboration, proper regulation and help with feasibility studies, we can get much greater investment into developing countries and improve people's lives. Such ways of working are helping to produce results.

Oral Answers to Questions — Somalia

Mr. David Lammy: If she will make a statement on Government aid to Somalia. [157647]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Somalia has had no Government since 1991 and is therefore suffering great poverty and instability. There is a growing demand among the people for the re-establishment of government. We support the recent establishment of the transitional Government and hope that they will secure order and development. We are providing assistance in Somalia through NGOs and stand ready to support UN peace-building programmes.

Mr. Lammy: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's response. The transitional Government are making some progress, but as there has been no direct British aid since 1993–94, does she now believe that there is a greater case for support of the transitional Government and of the Somali people?

Clare Short: I am afraid that the transitional Government are based on an agreement to bring order and government, but that has not yet been achieved. We need to support this effort. David Stevens, the United Nations Secretary General's special representative in Somalia, is hopeful about the new arrangements. Through the UN, we need to support the transitional Government in creating order, and then some co-operation with Puntland, to move

forward development in Somalia. I agree with my hon. Friend's objective, but we need a bit more progress before we can have full-blooded development.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Engagements

Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 April.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.

Mr. Robertson: I have given notice of this question.
The Prime Minister will be aware of the explosion that took place last year at the Cleansing Services group, a chemical works in my constituency. The explosion occurred even though we had given the Environment Agency plenty of notice that the site was not safe. Given the company's total disregard for the environment and its neighbours, to the extent that even the fire and rescue service cannot guarantee that it would turn up at another incident on the site, does he agree that closure is the only safe option? Will he order a public inquiry into the Environment Agency's abilities to monitor such a site? Will he please action those things today?

The Prime Minister: The issue of closure is a matter for the Environment Agency. It has suspended the waste management licence, and it will remain suspended until the agency is satisfied that it no longer needs to be. If I can turn to the issue of a public inquiry—I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his question—this was, of course, a private company. We asked the chairman of the Environment Agency to take personal responsibility for producing the initial report, and he did so. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it was a very hard-hitting report on the lessons to be learned. We understand the concerns and calls for a public inquiry. A further agency report is due shortly. As soon as we receive that report, we will then make a determination as to whether there should be a full public inquiry.

Ms Linda Perham: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is great concern in my constituency about street crime and youth vandalism, especially on local buses? Will he give the highest priority to continuing the drive to improve police recruitment and retention?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to say that the number of recruits is up by some 77 per cent. There is the largest increase in police numbers for more than a decade. As I gather that some Opposition Members have been criticising the Government for spending money on advertising campaigns, I point out that this money is being used to get more teachers, nurses and police in our public


services. That is the difference between a party that is investing in our public services and a party that is committed to cutting them.

Mr. William Hague: Given that the Government have now spent more than £62 million of taxpayers' money on advertising themselves and their schemes in the first three months of this year—more in three months than ever before in history—how much have they allocated to the British Tourist Authority to promote tourism overseas in the light of the foot and mouth crisis?

The Prime Minister: We have already allocated, as was described the other day, some £6 million to the tourist councils. There is, however, more money that will be allocated to them, which we will be announcing in the next few days. As for the money that is being spent on Government advertising, let me repeat again that the vast bulk of this is for campaigns that either ensure that we recruit the people we need for our public services, or that we are making sure that, for example, people entitled to the children's tax credit get it. I might just remind the right hon. Gentleman that, a few months ago, the Conservatives were complaining about recruitment in the public sector and saying that we had to do something about it.

Mr. Hague: The Government spent £3.5 million on the anti-benefit fraud campaign, which, according to their evaluation, led to no increase in reporting benefit fraud. The Government's report stated:
the result of the campaign was that respondents … perceived benefit fraud as easier to commit
than they had previously thought. That report is available in the Library.
The sum of £3 million has been spent on promoting take-up of the minimum income guarantee. Again, the evaluation states that it has
missed … 500,000 pensioners who are entitled to MIG but do not claim it.
It is therefore ludicrous for the Prime Minister to claim that such things are indispensable.
There are 1.75 million people working in the tourist industry. Bookings have decreased massively, and the BTA says that it needs £7 million now to stop bookings being cancelled. Is not it time that the Government stopped spending record sums on advertising themselves and spent some of it on advertising Britain?

The Prime Minister: Although it is true that some people have yet to take up the minimum income guarantee for pensioners—which, of course, Conservatives oppose—hundreds of thousands of pensioners throughout the country have that guarantee for the first time, thanks to the Government.
I agree that we need to do everything that we can for the tourist industry. Some £200 million of benefit to business is out there as a result of Government expenditure. The best thing that we can do for the tourist industry is help bring trade back to tourist areas. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members to help us

by showing a responsible attitude to the countryside that allows it to be open where it should be and enables tourism to return to it.

Mr. Hague: It is no good agreeing with what we say but doing nothing about it. The Prime Minister does not appear to understand the urgency of the problem. Five weeks ago, I proposed to him an emergency interest-free loan scheme—an emergency loan scheme to help rural businesses—yet the Government have responded with an interest-charging scheme that would plunge more into difficulty. After five weeks of dithering, will he introduce an interest-free loan scheme and realise that there is a difference between spinning and delivering?

The Prime Minister: As I explained to the right hon. Gentleman, we believe that it is better to build on existing schemes rather than introducing an entirely new scheme, which costs £500 million according to his figures. Doubtless the shadow Chancellor has told him where he will get the money—Or perhaps not. So far, more than £32 million has been allocated in rate relief and extending the small firms loan guarantee scheme has meant another £22 million and there is additional support for regional development agencies. There is £90 million of direct Government support and, as I have said, up to £200 million of benefit to businesses.
I have spoken to many people in the tourist industry—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has, too—and they say that they mostly need people to return to their areas. The position is not helped by people such as the shadow tourism Minister, who, when the case of the slaughterman with symptoms of foot and mouth disease—it remains unconfirmed—was announced, said that it was a massive setback for the tourism industry and would not help it. People in the tourism industry need less of that and more helpful talk from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jeff Ennis: Does the Prime Minister know about the new millennium clinic in Montagu hospital in Mexborough? Its waiting time for hernia and other minor operations is only four to eight weeks. Will he join me in congratulating all the staff, who have recently been awarded beacon status? Does not that underline what can be achieved under a Government who are firmly committed to the future of the NHS, unlike the Conservative party? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: Opposition Members are being a trifle hopeful vis-à-vis my hon. Friend.
As it happens, I know about the millennium clinic at the Montagu hospital in Mexborough, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the waiting times are down to four to eight weeks. This is part of a programme throughout the country that is putting money into accident and emergency departments, building new clinics, hiring more nurses and doctors, and making sure that, year on year, we get the investment into the health service that it needs. It will take time to do that, but that money is now coming in and the investment stands in sharp contrast to


the commitment of the Conservatives to cut that money. As we know from the shadow Chancellor this morning, they are still opposed to the Government's spending plans.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given one of today's reports, will the Prime Minister clarify the situation in respect of the future of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Does he intend to scrap it, reform it, restructure it or change it in due course? What is he going to do?

The Prime Minister: The report in this morning's newspaper was nonsense.

Mr. Kennedy: May I, therefore, say to the Prime Minister that one of the lessons of the present foot and mouth difficulties that the country has been confronting is that a rural affairs ministry in the Scottish context has proved to give a more co-ordinated and integrated approach than the best efforts of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at Whitehall level? May I recommend to him that, if he is looking at the future of MAFF, he should look at that model?

The Prime Minister: Although I am pleased at the progress that has been made in Scotland, it has to be pointed out that in Scotland the disease is effectively only in one part of the country. In England, the disease has been in many different parts of the country, and has therefore involved a far bigger logistical and practical exercise.
I would also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, as a result of the policy that has been pursued, the average number of cases per day now is about one third of what it was a few weeks ago. We are therefore slaughtering tens of thousands fewer animals every day. In relation to the normal food production chain, we are now back up to about 90 per cent. of pigmeat production, about 80 per cent. of cattle and almost 50 per cent. of lambs. There is still a long way to go, but we are making enormous progress. I remind Opposition Members that there were predictions that we would be up to 80 cases a day by about this point; in fact, we are nowhere near that, and the numbers are coming down.

Mr. Desmond Browne: This morning, 3,100 skilled and productive Motorola workers and their families woke to the grim reality of redundancy. What immediate Government support is proposed for them? Will my right hon. Friend reassure them that they are not to be sacrificed because it is cheaper and easier to sack Scottish workers than their continental European equivalents? As Motorola will continue to be a very important manufacturer in Scotland, even after the Bathgate plant is closed, what commitment has it given to a continued presence in Scotland and to future investment?

The Prime Minister: First, I totally understand the concern in my hon. Friend's constituency and in many others at the loss of jobs at Motorola. In relation to the response of the Government, we are obviously working now with the Scottish Executive to see what we can do to

help the workers affected. I would also like to quote William Dunn of West Lothian council, who said last night:
However, in the last 12 months, we have created over 7,000 jobs within West Lothian and we see that we can at least take some of these people into our economy … straight away.
We shall obviously have to work to make sure that that happens.
On consultation, we conformed fully with all the European Union requirements on this, including those on consulting about collective redundancies in European works councils. I do not think that that is the issue. Just in the past 10 weeks, in this sphere of industry, there have been 100,000 job losses worldwide. In many countries round the world, there have been job losses as a result of the downturn in that market. What we have to do is work very closely with the Scottish Executive and with the work force to make sure that those who are made redundant are found new jobs.

Mr. Stephen Day: Is the Prime Minister aware of the great surprise outside in the country at his reported proposal to supply free CDs to habitual young offenders? He is used to turning the meaning of the English language on its head. Does he not agree that this gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "He's got a record"?

The Prime Minister: I can only guess that it took the hon. Gentleman a very long time to think that one up.
There is only one problem with the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question, which is that it is completely false. There is no question of giving any incentives to young offenders. What I announced in respect of proposals to reward young people engaged in voluntary work is not for young offenders; it is for those young people who are undertaking voluntary work in their local communities. As ever, the Conservative party got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Mr. Clive Efford: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to figures published this month by the employment unit on the new deal for under-25s? They show that 380,000 people passing through the new deal have found jobs, rather than the 250,000 figure that we said that we would achieve at the last general election. Moreover, there has been an 80 per cent. reduction in youth unemployment in my constituency.
Does that not contrast with the "On your bike" policies of the last Government—"On your bike" being, of course, what the Tories are itching to say to their leader after the next election? Does it not also demonstrate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister can answer the hon. Gentleman.

The Prime Minister: We have not yet extended the new deal to Leaders of the Opposition, but I note my hon. Friend's representation.
Long-term youth unemployment is down by some 80 per cent. There has been a huge reduction over the past few years, but it has been achieved not merely through the strength of the economy but through the new deal


itself. However much Opposition Members may oppose it, tens of thousands—indeed, hundreds of thousands—of young people and others have had, for the first time in their lives, some real hope and real opportunity, and a chance to make something of themselves. In a decent civic society, if we want responsibility from people we should also give them opportunity.

Mr. John Redwood: When, after the thousands of job losses that took place yesterday—not just at Motorola—the Prime Minister says, "No more boom or bust", how does he define an economic bust?

The Prime Minister: If that was a leadership bid, it was unfortunate. I can define a bust: it happened when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the last Conservative Government. It happened not when debt was under control, unemployment was falling and interest rates were low, as is the case under this Government, but in the early 1990s when interest rates were at 15 per cent., debt was soaring, taxes were going up and public spending was being cut.

Mr. Jim Dobbin: Is the Prime Minister aware of a project in my constituency, where the area police team has established a mobile unit that it calls "the pod"? It is funded by the local authority and the Guinness Trust housing association. The pod can be moved rapidly from problem area to problem area. It provides a focal point for the community, raises the profile of the police and is working well. Will the Prime Minister consider using the same initiative in other areas? Will he also confirm that 13 additional police officers are on the way to Rochdale's Heywood and Middleton division this year?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the extra police officers are well worth it.
The pod scheme has been an immense success in my hon. Friend's area, and we are considering how it could be extended to other parts of the country. Ultimately it is a decision for local police and local authorities on the ground, but there is increasing evidence from around the country that youth offending can indeed be reduced provided that the right measures are in place—investment, and also the local strategic partnership that brings together police, local authorities, schools and others. That is one reason why overall crime is down by some 10 per cent. since the last election.

Mr. William Hague: Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised not to increase taxes at all. Will he now repeat his promise?

The Prime Minister: What I promised before the last election was that we would not increase the basic or the top rate of tax. We have not done that. As for any commitments we give at the next election, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the manifesto.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister knows that he did not just promise no increase in tax rates. On 21 September 1995, he said:
We have no plans to increase tax at all".

On 2 August 1996, he said:
Our proposals do not involve raising taxes.
On 8 January 1997, he said that the Labour party's programme
does not imply any tax increases at all.
The reason that he cannot repeat those promises is that he knows that he has introduced 45 new taxes in this Parliament—the largest increase in any peacetime parliament—and if he really believed that he had cut taxes, there would be no reason not to repeat those promises. Let us test whether even he believes the things that he has said. Will he repeat his promise of no tax increases at all?

The Prime Minister: I have already said what promises we gave at the last election. The right hon. Gentleman says that we said that nothing would change at all, but he forgets that we promised a utility tax to fund the new deal, and we implemented it. In fact, the tax burden rose in the period in which he was a member of the Cabinet. In the first part of this Parliament, it is true that tax revenues rose, because we had to deal with the huge deficit and doubled national debt that we inherited, but the other reason why the overall amount of revenue is higher now is that vastly more people are now in work than in the Tory years.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister will not repeat his promise because the truth is that he broke it and he knows that he broke it. He said that there would be no tax increases at all, but he has levied higher taxes on marriages, mortgages, petrol, pensions, savings, charities, insurance policies, house buying, cars, small businesses, large businesses and self-employment. Is not it the case that whether he makes yet another bogus pledge on income tax rates or not, the British people know that taxes have gone up under Labour and will always go up under Labour?

The Prime Minister: That would be slightly more credible were it not for the fact that the actual tax burden is lower than in six out of the 10 years under Mrs. Thatcher—if I can mention that person to the right hon. Gentleman. I have just explained to him how the tax burden went up in the last two years of the Government of whom he was a member. If the children's tax credit, the working families tax credit, the cut in the basic rate of income tax, and the lower national insurance charges—especially for those at the lower end of the income scale—are taken into account, many people have had substantial reductions in income tax.
More important than anything else is the fact that we have an economy in which, as a result of the prudent measures that have been taken, mortgages are running at half the level they were in the Conservative years. That is why the average mortgage holder is saving around £1,500 a year. The issue is not simply the amount of tax taken, which—as I said—is often a function of the number of people in work: it is also the strength of the economy and the number of jobs. In all those areas, we are in an infinitely stronger position as a result of the measures that we have taken. As I said to the right hon. Member for


Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) earlier, if we were ever to follow the path that he suggests, we would be back to Tory boom and bust and everyone's taxes would go up.

Mr. Phil Sawford: Will my right hon. Friend give a warm welcome to the observations of the shadow Health Secretary who, after his visit to Kettering general hospital earlier this week, said that it seemed that hospitals in the area were not doing badly? In the past four years we have had massive investment, including a new endoscope suite, a new orthopaedic theatre, a new ophthalmic unit and a new CAT scanner. I could go on. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we carry on at the present rate, the Conservatives might some day recognise that we are doing very well in Kettering?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the local people will recognise that. The investment in the health service is matched by the record investment in schools. I am sure that my hon. Friend could have read out a list of schools receiving capital investment, and I know that Kettering will receive extra police as a result of our investment.
Before Conservative Members get too confident about their chances in relation to my hon. Friend, I remind them that we will go into the next election promising to carry on that investment in schools, hospitals, police and pensions. I shall remind them what they will fight the next election on because it was set out by the shadow Chancellor in a letter to The Times this morning, in which he repeated the fact that he will reduce the 3.3 per cent. increase in public spending, to which we are committed, to below 2 per cent. So that means—[Interruption.] "Yes", they are all saying. That amounts to the £16 billion in cuts to which we know that the Opposition are committed. The choice for my hon. Friend's constituents will be very simple. It will be between investments under us and cuts under them.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the Prime Minister recall my asking him at Prime Minister's Question Time on 2 December 1998 whether he stood by his party's commitment before the last election to legislate on age discrimination? His answer was:
Yes, we stand by it."—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 879.]
Does he still stand by it? Does he still intend to legislate on age discrimination in this Parliament, or will that be just one more broken Labour promise?

The Prime Minister: I take it that that is a commitment from the Opposition to introduce such legislation—not that they did anything about it during their 18 years in office. In a series of agreements with employers, we have set out codes of practice to be followed by them in relation to age discrimination. We have not ruled out age discrimination legislation, but we thought it right to try the voluntary approach first, because that is what large parts of business wished us to do. I have no doubt that, had we introduced age discrimination legislation, he would have accused us of over-regulating industry.

Ms Julie Morgan: What measures does my right hon. Friend have in mind for continuing the drop in unemployment, which has already

resulted in the lowest unemployment rates in Wales for 25 years? In my constituency, it has resulted in a decline in youth unemployment of 70 per cent., and a drop of 90 per cent. in long-term unemployment.

The Prime Minister: What we will do, of course, is continue with the new deal, which helps into work those who are especially vulnerable in the labour market, such as long-term unemployed young people, lone parents, and so on. However, the single most important thing for the Government to do is to carry on running a strong and well-disciplined economy. The difficulty with the Conservative party's plans is that, because they mean that we would go back to the policies pursued in the early 1990s, very many fewer people would be in work and mortgages would be far higher. The only way that we are going to make sure that we keep the number of jobs in the economy that we have at present is by running a strong economy, with low inflation and low interest rates, with the national debt under control and with big investment in the public services that guarantees jobs in the future.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: This week, the Government granted a permit for an incinerator in Guildford that is 10 years out of date. Until Ministers get to grips with the health risks of such incinerators—and the strategic need for them—should not we have a moratorium on them?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that this is a problem that Governments of all political colours have had to deal with for years. It is a difficult matter, but there is a need for such facilities, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. Of course such decisions are difficult, because people never want such facilities in their local patch. However, any Government in power would have to decide that such incinerators have to go somewhere. I am sure that we will listen to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the truth is that, irrespective of which party is in government, this is something that has to be done.

Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Cammell Laird shipyard in my Jarrow constituency is the last working yard on the south bank of the Tyne? May I urge him to make every effort to ensure that the successful bidder for the yard continues the Tyneside tradition of shipbuilding and ship repair? Will he make extra efforts to ensure that the City spivs now circulating do not get their hands on the yard, which they will flog off and strip of its assets so that they can build yuppie houses for their friends?

The Prime Minister: I will deal with the Cammell Laird aspect of that question. Of course, I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend's constituents. Given Cammell Laird's continuing interest in Ministry of Defence work, it is important that we do everything that we can to help the company. In that connection, I know that my hon. Friend will be aware that there has been a huge boost in the number of apprentices at the yard, and elsewhere in the shipbuilding industry. However, it is obviously important that the yard competes for work on the same basis as other yards.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Following the Government's humiliating defeat in another place last night, will the Prime Minister finally agree with the views of medical charities, the British Medical Association and the Opposition and withdraw his mad plans to abolish community health councils?

The Prime Minister: No, we will not, because the replacement of community health councils by patient forums and patient councils is, we believe, and as the College of Health made clear earlier, a better way to make sure that patients' interests are represented. There has been a debate about community health councils for many years, but patient forums and patient councils will bring patients better into the machinery of decision making in the health service than anything before, which is why this move has been welcomed by the NHS Federation and the College of Health.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: The Prime Minister is experienced in the terrible consequences that follow when foot and mouth occurs in a locality. Will he translate that experience to Northern Ireland, a small geographical area which is totally dependent on

agriculture? Some 75 per cent. of its livestock has to be exported, and the tourist industry is devastated. We will not be able to afford to pay consequential loss compensation out of our block grant, which is insufficient for those purposes. Given the £37 billion surplus in the Treasury, will he give an assurance that extra funding will be made available to Northern Ireland for the financial fallout of foot and mouth?

The Prime Minister: We are looking to see what we can do to help businesses that are suffering as a result of foot and mouth disease. However, I go back to the point that I made a short time ago. The only way to help tourist businesses is by bringing tourism to them. In respect of the overall situation, we have to ensure that the disease is eradicated. The measures that we have taken over the past few weeks, difficult and ghastly though they have been, with the number of animals that have had to be slaughtered, are the only way that we are able, and have been able, to bring the disease under control. Unless we can eradicate the disease quickly, there will be no swift return to normality for the areas affected. We will look at the help that we can give and some measures will be announced in the next few days, but the single best thing that we can do is to eradicate the disease as swiftly as possible so that life gets back to normal.

Motorola, Bathgate

Mr. Speaker: Private notice question. Mr. Dalyell.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your thoughtful and considerate words, in answer to a point of order yesterday, to those who have lost their jobs at Bathgate, and for allowing me to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, of which I have given him private notice—namely, if he will make a statement on the Government's actions in relation to Motorola in Bathgate?

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will share with me and, I think, most Members of the House, the feelings of regret and disappointment caused by Motorola's decision to close its plant at Easter Inch in Bathgate. This is a bitter blow for hard-working people and their families. In considering our response to this an announcement, we need to be aware of the reasons for Motorola's decision and the steps that will need to be taken to help those individuals affected and the communities in which they live.
There is no doubt that Motorola is facing a difficult position with the sharp downturn in the market for mobile telephones. That was the reason given for yesterday's decision. As a consequence of this global decline, Motorola announced trading losses of £140 million for the first quarter of this year.
The closure of the Easter Inch factory is part of the wider rationalisation of global production capacity by Motorola personal communications sector—its mobile phones division. Since December, Motorola has announced plans to cut 12,000 jobs worldwide in this sector alone. It is closing two plants in the United States and cutting its work force in Brazil. In Europe, Motorola has sold its Dublin facility, with a major loss of jobs.
The Scottish Executive have bean in constant contact over the past few weeks with Motorola both in the United Kingdom and in the United States. The Government have backed the Scottish Executive's efforts. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and I have all made representations to Motorola.
In the end, Motorola took a decision that it believes to be in the long-term commercial interests of the company. However, there is no doubt that this will be an extremely difficult time for all those affected by the announcement. It will be a devastating blow for individuals, the families and the communities in which they live.
The first priority must be to pursue with Motorola future options for the Bathgate site. We need to explore every possible future use of that excellent facility. There are a wide variety of options to explore with the company—ranging from sale as a going concern to, possibly, sale to a contract manufacturer or to another related business. The other alternatives include new employment for a new employer purchasing the site. Invest UK stands ready to assist the Scottish Executive in that task.
In order to assist the individuals affected, the Scottish Executive are setting up a taskforce, made up of Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian, the Employment

Service, West Lothian council, the careers service, the Benefits Agency and the Scottish Trades Union Congress. The taskforce will draw up an action plan to meet the needs of the Motorola workers. Subject to the agreement of Motorola, that is likely to include an on-site jobshop, business start-up workshops and other support to assist people to find jobs—[Interruption.] The Conservatives may joke at the measures that we are putting in place to help those affected by the decision, but Labour Members and people in Scotland know only too well what the Conservatives did in the 1980s: they did nothing for the people of Scotland—that is the reality of the situation.
Because those individuals need assistance, the taskforce has been set up and has already begun its work to help them. The action plan will meet the needs of those individuals. The Scottish Executive are setting aside up to £10 million to help fund the action plan. It has been made clear to Motorola that it will have to pay back the £16.75 million in regional selective assistance that it has received for the plant during the past six years. That will be the largest clawback of RSA grant in the history of Scotland.
Although the Bathgate decision is a real body blow, we must not forget that Motorola will remain a major employer—and the largest electronic manufacturer—in Scotland. The company has given assurances that its semiconductor operations at East Kilbride and South Queensferry are unaffected by yesterday's decision; we welcome that. The company remains committed to a software development centre at Livingston and to the planned next generation of semiconductor technology in Dunfermline. Despite the decision, towards the end of last year, to reconsider the timing of the Dunfermline plan, Motorola has emphasised its underlying commitment to that project.
We would expect that workers from Bathgate, affected by yesterday's decision, will have the opportunity to retrain and to apply for those new jobs being created by Motorola in Scotland. The company has confirmed that it looks forward to building on its 32 years' association with Scotland, and that it sees Dunfermline as the cornerstone of its future investment.
It is clear that, at a time of globalisation, many sectors of industry are going through major restructuring, and that there are bound to be implications for us in the United Kingdom owing to the slowdown in the world economy, especially in the United States. However, we should not overstate our difficulties. Most forecasters expect manufacturing output to grow this year. The medium-term prospects appear good with productivity having grown at 6 per cent. Exports are also growing, with manufacturing export volumes up by more than 10 per cent. in the last year.
No country can ever insulate itself from world economic events, but it is because of the decisive action that we have taken—introducing tough fiscal rules, reducing the national debt, making the Bank of England independent and delivering the lowest inflation for 30 years—that British economic policy is much better placed than it has ever been in the past.
We are on course to continue to deliver stability and sustained growth, but it is an extremely difficult time for individuals and communities when jobs are lost as industries restructure in the face of change. It is even more frustrating when, as in this case, those losses arise because


of global managerial decisions based on financial problems in one sector, despite the success and the profits coming from the plant that has been earmarked for closure.
This will be a difficult time for all those affected by the announcement. The Bathgate work force are productive and highly skilled. I know that, working with local and national agencies and the Scottish Executive, the United Kingdom Government will do all we can to assist them to find new jobs.
The closure of the Easter Inch plant will take place over six to 12 months. Motorola, the Scottish Executive, the Employment Service and the Government will work together to ensure that employees are found new employment before redundancy takes effect.
Bathgate has suffered from job losses before. In the 1980s, unemployment reached 17 per cent. but, through hard work and commitment, the situation has been turned around. As a result, the current rate of unemployment in West Lothian stands at 3.8 per cent.—a great success story. However, I am the first to acknowledge that those figures will be of little comfort to the workers affected by the announcement. Many hon. Members will understand the anger and frustration that they will feel. We must do all we can to help them through the difficult months ahead. By working together with the Scottish Executive, I am confident that we will be able to meet the challenges that lie ahead and, as a result, offer real hope to those individuals, their families and the communities affected by Motorola's decision.

Mr. Dalyell: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the tone and content of his statement? Does he sympathise—I do not doubt for a moment that he does—with those who are having to face redundancy, not for the first, not for the second, but in some cases for the third, fourth or even fifth time in their lives? Does he recognise that the majority of the 3,200 people losing their jobs are youngish people, who—thanks, in part, to Motorola's first-class and caring training policies and, in part, to excellent schoolteachers and further education lecturers in central Scotland—are eminently employable?
Looking to the future, should we not co-operate with Motorola in getting the best possible redundancy terms for those who are losing their jobs? Is not the company's offer of four weeks' pay for every year of service four times the statutory requirement, and confirmation of the company's decency towards its employees?
Does the Secretary of State recognise that Motorola has a 32-year commitment to Scotland at East Kilbride and continues to work closely and constructively with many organisations and, in particular, with the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who endorses my favourable attitude towards Motorola?
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that Motorola has provided 20,000-odd person years of quality employment at Bathgate, which will always be appreciated throughout the central Scotland community? Will he do everything in his power to encourage Motorola to develop and expand research and software facilities in my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's constituency of Livingston and to go ahead with the proposed semiconductor development

at Hyundai in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's constituency of Dunfermline, East? Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry agree with Bill Speirs of the STUC that the Government must do everything to keep Motorola in Scotland?
Albeit that there are legally obligatory repayments under regional selective assistance, when my right hon. Friend considers such matters, will he take into account the point that Motorola should in no way be scapegoated? Is not the truth that West Lothian has been resilient since the days of James "Paraffin" Young in the industrial revolution and that it is a vibrant industrial community, which has the potential to absorb many of the 3,100 skilled work force? Incidentally, is it not a fact that, according to Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian, although 800 redundancies were declared by Continental Tyres at Newbridge in late 1999, only 31 people of those people remain unemployed? I know from my first-hand knowledge that there are explanations for some of the cases that are included in that figure of 31.
Do we have the assurance that my right hon. Friend—along with the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), who is sitting beside him and whose constituency is affected, and the constructive and efficient members and officials of West Lothian district council and the Scottish Executive—will make sure that the full resources of Government are brought to bear to ensure that customised training will help to place these skilled workers as quickly as possible into alternative employment? I cannot sufficiently emphasise the importance of customised training, especially against the backdrop of a continuing skills shortage in our area.
Does my right hon. Friend share a certain unease that part of the trouble has been brought about by young analysts, operating in Wall Street and in the City of London? They have no great knowledge of industry and they are concerned about getting a quick buck. They know very little about the lives of the people affected and on whom they have such a great effect.
Does my right hon. Friend share my unease about the culture of blame that has developed in relation to redundancies in high-tech industries? Hindsight is a marvellous thing, and we might all be better if we possessed perfect foresight. Is it not true that, until Christmas 2000 when every primary school pupil in the playground seemed to have asked for a mobile phone, demand boomed? In six short weeks, the mobile phone has become a product that we replace only when we lose or bust it.
Can we count—I am sure that we can—on the sustained and intense co-operation that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised at 3.15 pm in answer to the pertinent question of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne)?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate on this issue. For some time, he has been concerned about Bathgate's prospects and the possible decision by Motorola. He has set the right tone for the House. We need to be conscious of the needs of the individuals affected by the decision. They will be very uncertain about their prospects and need to know that their Government in Westminster and the Scottish Parliament and Executive want to put in place measures to assist


them. Motorola will remain a major employer in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. It is not a fly-by-night company; it has been in Scotland for 32 years.
We understand Motorola's difficulties. Some 21,000 jobs are being lost worldwide because of the downturn in the mobile phone market and Bathgate is paying a heavy price because of the industry's commercial decisions. We need to engage with Motorola and find a new owner for an excellent facility at Easter Inch. My hon. Friend mentioned the repayment of regional selective assistance. Motorola has been clear on that. It received the assistance subject to certain conditions and has been open in stating that if it does not meet them, it is only right and proper to repay the money. It said that in the last 24 hours.
I agree with the comments made by Bill Speirs of the STUC. This is an opportunity to work in a real partnership. My hon. Friend made an important point about the strengths of the work force in Bathgate. Many of the employees are young and have been through excellent training as a result of Motorola's efforts. It is true to say that education and training are probably the best economic policy that any community or country can have. Motorola's employees will be in a strong position to take advantage of the new opportunities that it is to be hoped will be available to them in the next six to 12 months. We have a breathing space to ensure that those opportunities exist for the people affected by Motorola's decision.
The Conservatives sneer when we talk about establishing a taskforce to help those people, but in the north-east, when Siemens closed its plant in my constituency and Fujitsu closed its plant at Newton Aycliffe further south, taskforces were set up and within 12 months the majority of people who were affected were in work. That is in stark contrast to the Conservatives' approach. They would simply say, "This is about market forces. Government should not intervene." We are following an active policy in which we make representations. However, if a decision is taken, of which we do not approve—as in this case—but which is in response to commercial realities, we want to work with the people and community affected so that we can be far stronger in addressing their needs and concerns. That is exactly what we will do in Bathgate. We will work with the Scottish Executive and Motorola to ensure that people affected by the decision will have new opportunities.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The job losses at Motorola are disastrous for the staff and work force, especially in the constituency of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). However, the effect will be felt more widely, both in Scotland and the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the losses follow more than 350,000 manufacturing jobs lost since the last general election. That compares with 69,000 extra manufacturing jobs created by the most recent Conservative Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm those figures and that contrast? Will he also comment on today's CBI industrial trends survey, which shows that orders, output and business confidence are sharply down? The terrible job losses may be the latest but not the last in the sector.
Most importantly, will the disaster at Motorola finally shake the Government out of their complacency on employment? Last-minute emergency telephone calls from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry do not repair the damage caused by four

years of endless increases in business taxes and the piling on to British industry of more and more red tape and regulations, all of which has undermined our competitiveness. That will be particularly important if there is a worldwide economic downturn, which I notice the right hon. Gentleman is starting to blame for everything.
Will the Secretary of State today start to listen to what companies and industry have been telling the Government for four years about the need to retain competitiveness and the damage that will be caused to future jobs if that is not done? Will he start to stand up for the interests of British industry? Will he resist the endless Treasury demands for more and more revenue from business and industry which have reduced the Department of Trade and Industry to the role of a spectator as the job losses mount, month after month?
Finally, is it the case that Motorola was hit by the slow take-up and orders for its new GPRS handset, caused in turn by the £22.5 billion paid by the industry to the Treasury last year as the licence fee for the next mobile phone spectrum auction? That was a transfer of debt from the public to the private sector which weakened the telecom sector and threatened to put this country further behind in the whole technology sector.

Mr. Byers: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman got his last point totally wrong. He was talking about a second-generation capability mobile phone, and of course the auction related to third-generation capability. Perhaps that is the sort of detail that he does not want to go into.
Most importantly, we should look at the reasons that Motorola has given for its decision. Let us listen not to the right hon. Gentleman or me, but to Motorola, which has made it very clear that the decision was made because of a downturn in the global mobile phone market. That is why 12,000 jobs are being lost worldwide—not only in Scotland, but in America, Brazil and Dublin. We are in a global economy and we feel the consequences of that.
The right hon. Gentleman made a comparison with the loss of manufacturing jobs. He was very selective in the period from which he quoted figures. He said that some 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the past four years under this Government, but he failed to look at the record on manufacturing of 18 years of Conservative Government. Let us consider that period—1979 to 1997. The right hon. Gentleman does not like it because he knows that 2.5 million manufacturing jobs were lost in that time. That is an average loss of 150,000 manufacturing jobs every year for 18 years, not just one or two years. That is why Labour Members will take no lessons from the Conservatives about our commitment to manufacturing. In Scotland, there are now 100,000 more people in work than when we came into office. In the United Kingdom, there are now 1.2 million more people in work than in May 1997. Those are the true figures, which the right hon. Gentleman will not allow to get in the way of his prejudice.
It was interesting that there was nothing in the Conservative spokesman's remarks, not even a sentence, about the steps to help the individuals affected by the decision, because the Conservatives simply do not care. We know that because we have been here; we know their attitude to the loss of manufacturing jobs. In Scotland, hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing were lost


in the 1980s. We all know what the Conservatives did; they walked away and did not discharge their responsibilities. We will discharge our responsibilities to the workers of Bathgate and the people of Scotland. We are an active Government working in partnership, ensuring that people have a far better future.

Mr. Joe Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the collapse of the mobile phone industry is affecting not just Motorola in Scotland but 950 jobs at Ericsson in my constituency? Is it not time that there was an inquiry by the Office of Fair Trading into that industry's marketing? It costs £100 to make each mobile phone, yet the networks—Orange, Vodafone, BT and so on—are putting them on sale at £15 to £20, hoping to make their money from the cost of calls. They have expanded the market into a fashion industry, as phones are given as children's presents at Christmas. Kids are given phones only to find out that they cannot afford the £5 or £10 vouchers to keep using them. Suddenly, virtually overnight, a major worldwide industry has collapsed.
There should be some inquiry, even if it is conducted by a television company, into how a high-tech industry can pull that sort of stunt and put hundreds of people—indeed, thousands across Europe—out of jobs while being irresponsible about marketing. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Office of Fair Trading to conduct an inquiry into how the collapse came about?

Mr. Byers: I do not think establishing an OFT inquiry would serve the purposes about which my hon. Friend feels strongly. If there is any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, clearly that should be referred to the OFT. However, there are wider issues. I fully understand my hon. Friend's concerns about Ericsson's decision in relation to his constituency. We are working closely with Ericsson to try to identify a new owner for that facility and its other facility just outside Scunthorpe. There has been a lot of interest from people wishing to acquire those plants. I hope that there might be some good news concerning those individuals. There are therefore issues that need to be addressed, but starting an OFT inquiry now will not serve the objectives that my hon. Friend wishes to achieve.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. In granting this private notice question, I realised that we have an Opposition day and are eating into Opposition time, so I appeal to the House for brief questions.

Dr. Vincent Cable: May I add my sympathy to that expressed for members of the work force and their families, and welcome the taskforce? May I ask specifically whether the £16.5 million repayment will be available to the taskforce to help retraining and assist the work force?
In the Secretary of State's discussions with the company, how did it explain the fact that it is closing its Scottish installation, but not its installation in Flensburg in Germany? Is that because the company judged that the German manufacturing environment is more competitive

than ours for exchange rate or other reasons, or is it because the German plant is an R and D unit? Is not one of the lessons of the exercise the fact that our selective industrial policy has channelled large sums of money—a cumulative total of £6.5 billion in Scotland, I think—to subsidise jobs, rather than provide the added value and permanence of more developed approaches to regional policy?
Finally, since the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor have been speaking to company executives about that commercial decision, what was the basis of their representation? Did the Secretary of State resist the pressures from the industry to change retrospectively the terms of their auction licences and allow anti-competitive mergers in the industry?

Mr. Byers: In the conversations that I had with the company, the cost of the third-generation auction was not an issue that it raised. The debate was always about the relative costs of the plant in Germany compared with those at the Bathgate facility. Those were not employment costs. The company was examining the totality of provision. In that context, it felt that there were reasons—partly because of the different nature of the facility in Germany—why on balance it made greater commercial sense for the Bathgate facility to be the one that should suffer from this decision.
As for the repayment of regional selective assistance, the Scottish Executive have already indicated that up to £10 million will be available to support the work of the taskforce. I am sure that when the money is repaid, it will be examining how it can use the regional selective assistance in a way that will support economic regeneration and job creation.

Ms Rachel Squire: As someone who lived in Bathgate during the late 1980s and early 1990s, I saw for myself the devastation of communities under the previous Conservative Government. May I express my deep regret to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and to the communities that are so affected by the decision on redundancies?
My constituency suffered 10,000 job losses under the previous Government but has seen successful regeneration under the policies of the present Government. I welcome the announcement of the taskforce, and I welcome Motorola's commitment to the Dunfermline facility, which is within my constituency. That creates much confusion. Does my right hon. Friend agree, as I am sure my constituents in Dunfermline and West Fife would agree, that it is to be hoped that when Motorola opens its new facility in Dunfermline, some of the new job opportunities will be available to people who are now working at Easter Inch as well as to the people of Dunfermline and West Fife?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is worth reminding ourselves, as my hon. Friend has reminded us, of the number of jobs that have been lost in the not too distant past, including 10,000 in her constituency, and the change that we are seeing in the employment scene in Scotland. Although such figures represent the total picture, an individual on the production facility at Easter Inch will not derive great comfort from them if he is threatened with the loss of his job within the


next few months. That is why it is important that Motorola recommits itself to its Livingston facility as well as the one at Dunfermline, and provides, with the Scottish Executive and the Employment Service, customised training, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow requested, so that the vacancies that become available at these facilities can be taken up by people from Bathgate. They will be able to do so if they have the necessary training and skills.
That is how we must look forward. I know that it is especially difficult to do so within 24 hours of such a decision. We need to work together to provide new opportunities and skills and training for the individuals who are affected by Motorola's decision.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The worry for the families of those who have lost their jobs is evident. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was right to say that Motorola has been an extremely important inward investor into this country, and has tried to treat its employees well. There is no doubt that such inward investment showed merits under the Conservative Government as well as under the present Government. I hope that the Secretary of State will draw the right conclusion, which is that inward investment creates jobs, but there can be risks to those jobs in an open world market.
Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to follow the reactionary policies being introduced in France, which are more likely to deter inward investment into France? Also, the Australian Government blocked Shell's acquisition of Woodside Oil only this week.
Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that one of the reasons why Motorola decided to continue in Germany rather than in Scotland is that there are significant tax advantages to the company through rolled-up losses in Germany, which shows that within a single market it is important to consider how one tax in one country relates to tax treatment in another country? Will the Secretary of State please put it on the record again that Sir David Brown, the chairman of Motorola, is not alone in British industry in understanding that the competitive problem of the United Kingdom is associated with the fact that we are not part of the eurozone?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the views of Sir David Brown, the UK chairman of Motorola, regarding the UK's membership of the single European currency. He has gone on record as saying that in his view, it would be beneficial to companies such as Motorola if that were the case. With regard to the particular announcement, UK membership of the single European currency was not an issue that affected the decision. Some 12,000 jobs worldwide are being lost as a result of the decision.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the nature of inward investment. We are an extremely favoured location within Europe for a number of reasons: one is the economic stability, another is our labour market regulation, and a third is the fact that we can attract companies to come to the UK as a bridge into the rest of Europe. It is important that we maintain that position and do nothing that would act as a disincentive.
The hon. Gentleman is right to flag up the difficulties that can arise. That is an issue to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred yesterday. At a time when world

economies are beginning to slow down, there is always a danger that national Governments will move to protectionism, close off markets and adopt policies that may be popular in their own countries in the short term, but which in the medium and long term create real difficulties for economic growth and prosperity. History teaches us the dangers of that. We must make sure that we do not repeat those mistakes—and we certainly will not.

Mr. Frank Roy: Unfortunately, Motorola is well known for using employment agency workers, who are paid less and given fewer rights than others who work beside them. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that those agency workers will be given the same employment assistance as people employed by the company?

Mr. Byers: I will certainly do that. I am informed that all those affected are full-time employees, but we need to check that and make sure that some of the workers affected are not discriminated against because of their employment status.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I support the creation of a taskforce for an area that I know extremely well. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the figure of £10 million, which has been announced by the Scottish Government, is a ceiling figure, or will the financial commitment behind the taskforce be as much as it takes to deal with an economic catastrophe on a substantial scale? The right hon. Gentleman sounded very confident about the future of inward investment. Can he tell the House anything more about the reasons for that confidence?
Finally, 32,000 fewer people are employed in manufacturing in Scotland now than in 1997. Many of the job losses have been related to the exchange rate, and many have been associated with non-membership of the eurozone. Why, then, is the Secretary of State so confident that no aspect of the decision was related to the eurozone, despite the fact that the decision was made to retain a similar plant in Germany?

Mr. Byers: On the latter point, that was because of conversations that we had with Motorola, and its public statements since the announcement about the reasons for its decision. The hon. Gentleman should consider the company's decision to close its facility in Dublin, which was clearly within the eurozone but still felt the effect of the global downturn. Those are the reasons that have been given by Motorola.
As for the work of the taskforce, the Scottish Executive said today that £10 million would be available. That is not a capped figure. More will be made available if necessary to meet the needs of the individuals affected. It is important that they should be aware that there will be support and training, and that the necessary steps will be taken to put them in a strong position to get the jobs that will be created in a strong Scotland in the future.
With regard to the Dunfermline facility, since the announcement yesterday Motorola has made it clear that although it announced a slowing down in the timetable


last year, it is still committed to developing the facility at Dunfermline as a cornerstone of the new technology that it wants to develop for the future.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have to be honest, Mr. Speaker, and say that I missed the first two minutes of my right hon. Friend's statement. I was delayed in coming to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but in that case, he is unable to ask a question.

Mr. John McFall: I welcome the establishment of the taskforce. I have some practical experience, as I chair a taskforce in Dumbarton in relation to the J&B Whisky bottling plant, which closed three years ago with the loss of 500 jobs. With a partnership approach, fewer than 60 people out of the original 500 have not secured employment, and there are reasons why some of those who remain unemployed have not secured work. In the light of the experience of myself and others, does my right hon. Friend accept the fact that the private employer is the key to the taskforce? The private employer has to be committed, just as Diageo was in my constituency. I pay tribute to Diageo for its involvement. Motorola has to be centrally involved, so that it leaves the community an economic and social legacy as a result of its many years in Bathgate.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend, drawing on his personal experience, makes an important point about the role of the private sector. Given Motorola's 32 years of involvement in Scotland, and given also the nature of the company, I am sure that it will want to be involved in the work of the taskforce. I know from my experience in north-east England that, as my hon. Friend said, taskforces will be successful when the private sector is actively involved with the public sector. We welcome the fact that the STUC is a member of the taskforce. Partnership will often be the most successful approach.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Secretary of State welcome the fact that the European Information Society Group, or EURIM—the all-party group that deals with Information Society issues—decided almost a month ago to set up a mobile working party? There is a meeting on Monday to deal with the issues. Will he consider carefully the fact that the payment of £22.5 billion by the networks has meant that they have not invested in current roll-out of the GPRS system? Motorola is the first company in the world to have made handsets available, but there is no network for them. That is a significant issue, as Motorola would have been manufacturing the handsets now if the networks could afford to make the investment and had not given £22.5 billion to the Chancellor.

Mr. Byers: I hope that the working party will deal with that point, as I think that the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The working party might be able to illuminate him about the exact consequences. I know that the Conservative Opposition have been trying to turn the proceeds of the auction—the £22.5 billion received by the Government for the third generation—into an issue.

Companies took commercial decisions at the time. We took the view that it was far better to let the commercial decisions determine how much people were prepared to pay for the licences. Opposition Members now seem to be suggesting that some of the money should be paid back because the companies got a commercial judgment wrong. That is the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but the proceeds of the auction are a red herring in terms of Bathgate and Motorola. I want us to use this opportunity to discuss the needs of the individuals and the reality of the position in Scotland.

Mr. William Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I had an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall only yesterday on job losses in the electronics industry in Northern Ireland? I think that those losses are, in total, of the same magnitude per capita for Northern Ireland as the loss announced today is for Scotland. Is he also aware that I was somewhat surprised not only to secure that debate, but to learn that he was to speak on the subject today, as we have devolution in the two affected areas of the United Kingdom? I am gratified that the Government are indicating through him a measure of responsibility for resolving the difficulties caused by such job losses. Will he assure me that whatever is done with regard to Motorola and Scotland will be done in every other region of the United Kingdom where such job losses occur?

Mr. Byers: As you know, Mr. Speaker, because we have communicated about the matter, some aspects are reserved. For example, we have direct responsibility for social security benefits and employment legislation, whereas industrial assistance issues are devolved to the Scottish Executive.
However, I have always believed that devolution is about maintaining a partnership approach, and that we achieve far more together. Some people do not agree, but we achieve more together than by claiming that matters are not our responsibility. I was therefore more than happy to talk to Motorola, and the Prime Minister believed that it was also his responsibility to do that. We cannot instruct a commercial company, but we can make representations. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not, and we regret it. However, it is far better to make the effort on behalf of workers wherever they are in the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland—than to stand to one side and do nothing.

Mr. Michael Moore: Motorola has a huge presence in Scotland and the closure of the plant will be a massive blow to the whole country as well as the immediate Bathgate area. Does the Secretary of State accept that it is a warning of a wider problem in the telecoms sector? Signum Circuits in my constituency in Selkirk has laid off a significant part of its work force, and although the company had begun to repair the damage that Viasystems did to the borders region, it is now on short-term working.
Will the Secretary of State make available, not only to the Scottish Executive but to whoever needs it, money to assist companies that are having difficulty because of the


world downturn in the telecoms sector and the consequences of some of the bids that were made for third generation licences?

Mr. Byers: I am acutely aware of the difficulties, especially in the borders, that were caused by Viasystems' decision. We held a meeting some time ago to discuss what we could do about it.
Some sectors—telecommunications is only one—are experiencing global difficulties for some of the reasons that we discussed this afternoon. The best thing that the Government can do is to ensure a climate of economic stability. We operate in a global economy and multinational companies can go anywhere in the world. It is therefore clear that they will go to countries where there is some economic stability.
Clearly, there is market pressure on the telecommunications sector, especially because of the dramatic downturn in the American economy. We must do all we can to support companies, through R and D and further assistance of that nature. We are more than willing to work with the relevant industries, sector by sector, to identify the steps that need to be taken to ensure that they are in a strong position to meet the challenges ahead.

Points of Order

Mr. Chris Pond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise the falsification of a letter that was written by one of the most senior Officers of the House. A member of the public falsified the letter to support his wrongful allegations of misconduct and impropriety against me.
The Serjeant at Arms recently considered a complaint about letters that I had written on Commons notepaper to young people in my constituency. On 26 March, the hon. Member who had complained received a reply from the Assistant Serjeant at Arms. He passed it on to my political opponent, the prospective parliamentary Conservative candidate for Gravesham, Mr. Jacques Arnold, who was the original source of the complaint.
The reply exonerated me, but Mr. Arnold has now admitted to having removed a section of the letter from the Assistant Serjeant at Arms before circulating to the press a now fraudulent document, which still carried the letterhead and signature of the Assistant Serjeant at Arms. The passage that he removed stated:
I do not see anything there inappropriate to House stationery.
Mr. Arnold circulated the falsified letter to the press in a press release, the first line of which reads:
The Serjeant at Arms of the House of Commons has found Chris Pond, M.P. for Gravesham, guilty of inappropriate use of House of Commons stationery.
That incident raises serious questions about which I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker. First, Mr. Arnold tried to compromise and use the office of the Serjeant at Arms to undermine the integrity of an hon. Member. What protection exists for Officers of the House, when one of the most senior parliamentary officials is misrepresented in this way? Secondly, does not it show contempt, especially by someone who hopes to become a Member of the House, to falsify for his own purposes letters issued on the Serjeant at Arms' notepaper?
Some may consider this a rather ham-fisted, if dishonest and deceitful, attempt at forgery by a Tory prospective parliamentary candidate. However, forgery for personal gain is generally considered a criminal offence. How does the House consider incidents of forgery for political gain, and what can Parliament do to make sure that this sort of practice does not continue elsewhere?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. There is no action that I can take in relation to the particular occurrence that has caused him concern. I can, however, make it clear that I strongly deprecate the manipulation of correspondence from Officers of the House in a way that misrepresents its contents.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course I appreciate what you have said, as I am sure the whole House—Certainly hon. Members on this side—Will have done. Cannot this matter be pursued any further? If the person concerned has—as he clearly has—done what my hon. Friend said he had, surely further action is required. At one time, if I may remind you, Sir, those who showed such contempt


for the House were brought before the Bar of the House. My view is that this particular rather obnoxious person should be brought before the Bar of the House at your instructions.

Mr. Speaker: As I stated, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) gave me notice of his point of order. I have given him what I consider to be a proper reply and I have nothing to add.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could answer a simple question. Has this gentleman personally apologised to the Serjeant at Arms' Office in the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter that I have any information on. [HON. MEMBERS: "He should."] Order.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If this person were brought to the Bar of the House, would not that be the nearest that he got to the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

BILL PRESENTED

EXTENSION OF SUMMER TIME

Mr. Nigel Beard, supported by Mr. Adrian Bailey, Liz Blackman, Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, Mr. Howard Flight, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. David Kidney, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Syd Rapson, Sir Michael Spicer and Mr. Andrew Tyrie, presented a Bill to amend the Summer Time Act 1972 so as to provide for the maintenance of British Summer Time throughout the year: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May, and to be printed [Bill 87].

Age Equality Commission

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the establishment of an Age Equality Commission to advise the Government on discrimination issues in relation to older people.
Almost a year ago, on 12 July, the House gave permission for the first time for Parliament to establish an age equality commission. As we had a shared background in engineering before we entered the Palace of Westminster, Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will appreciate why this civil engineering MP believes that all problems can be solved with the application of endeavour and resolution. An engineer will always relish the challenge of problem solving, and takes delight in selecting the correct tool for the job from his toolbox.
The hundreds of constituents who encounter the daily barriers of age discrimination face persistent and recurring problems that are a blight on their everyday lives. Across the country, thousands of ordinary British people hoped that they had every right to expect a fair deal as they got older. Far too often, the reality is quite different from those hopes and aspirations.
Working in Scarborough and Whitby with the local Age Concern group and the Association of Retired Persons over 50—commonly known as ARPO50—I have tried to set up challenges to the individual cases that have been brought to me in my constituency surgeries. However, this engineer feels that the lack of appropriate parliamentary tools for the job has made the whole procedure of trying to solve those problems far more complicated than it needs to be. That is why I hope that the House will join me in calling for an end, by law, to the discrimination against older people in work, health, public services and the consumer market. We need to have action in law as soon as possible.
I believe that the House should be doing all in its power to create new opportunities for older people to work, volunteer, learn and retrain where necessary, so that they can play the fullest possible part in our society. My constituency is well known as containing a large number of people aged over 50, and my constituency experiences tell me that we in the House should fulfil their hopes and give them a significant and vibrant role in the society in which they want to play a part. In health, housing and the care systems, we need to provide the opportunity of independence and security for all, particularly my elderly constituents. Let us be honest: many of us who are present now will eventually find ourselves over the age of 50. It would therefore be inappropriate for me not to declare a personal interest in that regard.
One year on, what has actually happened? I believe that there has been some progress, but it is modest progress. I commend the Government for tackling ageist attitudes and practices in our national health service, many examples of which have been brought to me in my constituency surgeries. A good start has been made, but, owing to the lack of the readily available parliamentary toolbox that I mentioned earlier, the battle against age discrimination is far from won. The issue needs a comprehensive focus: we need a comprehensive campaign to tackle it head on. I hope that my proposals for the establishment of an age equality commission will lead to a national crusade


against age discrimination, thereby changing attitudes in our public services to ensure that older people are given equal treatment.
I also commend the excellent work done at national level by Age Concern and its partners during the "debate of the age" programme last year. My Bill seeks to build on the successes of that programme, and the evidence that was gathered during the national consultation. It seeks to encourage and support the Government in the fight against age discrimination in which they need to engage.
Earlier this month, the employers forum on age, chaired by Howard Davies, produced an important yet simple manifesto entitled "End Ageism in Employment". I hope that the newly formed commission would see it as an early priority to consult and involve employers throughout business in order to develop effective, practical, workable age legislation before the deadline of 2006. The commission must focus on the implementation of flexible options at the end of people's working lives, and it must include a review of the age bars that exist in current employment law. Given that age discrimination in employment costs the country more than £26 billion every year, promoting age diversity in the workplace will be crucial to ensuring the United Kingdom's future competitive and economic success. That key part of the toolbox for our economic future is built into my Bill.
The simple fact is that people continue to live longer and healthier lives than ever before, many having left paid employment in their early 50s. Birth rates continue to fall, and far fewer people are coming into the labour market. Recent surveys across business have established that 91 per cent. of firms are affected by skill shortages, but many employers continue to base employment decisions on grounds of age. I deplore that.
I believe that the employers forum on age offers a promising start. The forum, set up by 170 of the major public and private sector employers, representing nearly 10 per cent. of the UK's work force, is correct to place

ageism at the top of the political agenda. Ageism in employment just does not tie in with the country's economic prospects.
I hope that the House will send a clear signal to Government by supporting the Bill. I hope that that will encourage Ministers to review, as a matter of urgency, current employment practices not only in wider industry but, in particular, in the civil service, thereby promoting age diversity and increasing participation in that service by all individuals, irrespective of age. I hope that the Government will then share that practice with wider industry, so that proper legislative propositions may emerge from that test-bed.
I express a simple engineer's view that this debate is of prime importance to our nation's future, as well as very timely. Next week, the House will have further opportunities to consider similar issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). That cross-party approach to the issue of ageism will be appreciated by all hon. Members, and I am encouraged by the support that my proposals have received from members of all political parties in the House. I hope that my proposal finds favour with the House, and that the progress of the Age Equality Commission Bill will offer dignity, security and opportunity to many of our fellow citizens over the age of 50.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lawrie Quinn, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Ann Keen, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Ms Dan Taylor, Mr. Alan Campbell, Angela Smith, Mr. Richard Allan, Ms Rosie Winterton, Mr. Paul Burstow and Mr. Bob Blizzard.

AGE EQUALITY COMMISSION

Mr. Lawrie Quinn accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of an Age Equality Commission to advise the Government on discrimination issues in relation to older people: And the same was read the First time: and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May, and to be printed [Bill 88].

Opposition Day

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Rural Economy

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): We now come to the main business today. The Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Colin Breed: I beg to move,
That this House notes that the current foot and mouth crisis has impacted upon a wide range of rural businesses and services, affecting almost every aspect of rural life; further notes that foot and mouth has hit a countryside already in decline as a result of years of neglect under successive Governments; urges Her Majesty's Government to provide realistic emergency support to the whole range of businesses affected to enable them to withstand this crisis; and calls on the Government to put in place long-term policies to regenerate British agriculture and to revitalise the rural economy as a whole.
What started as an agricultural crisis has quickly developed into a rural crisis, and now foot and mouth disease is affecting almost every region in the country, with tourism most badly hit. If nothing else, the present epidemic has emphasised the interdependence of so many businesses, especially those located in rural Britain. However, not even large cities have been immune from the effects of that terrible animal disease.
With the stench of burning cattle, the spectre of huge burial mounds and the disgusting sight of slaughtered animals lying for weeks on farms before disposal—and still more new cases each day—it is difficult to accept that the crisis is under control. That is even more true when so many farmers and businesses are facing a wipeout and everyone fears for their future.

Mr. John Burnett: Does my hon. Friend agree that my constituents should not have to bear the brunt of digging the Government out of the appalling mess that they have made of dealing with the foot and mouth crisis? Does he also agree that the burden should be shared and that unburied carcases should be disposed of in the numerous landfill sites up and down the country, not in pyres and huge burial grounds?

Mr. Breed: We all recognise the considerable problems faced by people in Devon. They bear a huge burden, given the enormous numbers of animals that have to be buried or burned. An enormous backlog remains. I suspect that Devon could not take all the animals involved. There must be different and quicker ways in which dispose of them: I do not believe that we can wait three or four weeks to deal with perhaps 100,000 animals.
Dealing with the crisis still appears to be more of an administrative and bureaucratic exercise run from Whitehall than a management job on the ground. Too often, confused and delayed instructions come out of London, and they sometimes contradict decisions made close to outbreaks of the disease. Comparisons with the way in which Scotland and Wales, under devolved Administrations, have handled the problem are pertinent.

They reinforce calls from Liberal Democrat Members for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to be absorbed into a new department of rural affairs. That would give focus, co-ordination and speed to the decision-making processes, and enable co-ordinated policy making for our rural areas in the future.
However, it is still annoying that so many issues remain unresolved that should have been finalised weeks ago. What is to be done for farmers whose cattle have gone over the 30-month limit during the period of restrictions? What about other animals that have passed their prime and lost their value? What about the cows that are drying off because artificial insemination men are not being allowed access to the farms?

Mr. Norman Baker: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is another question to be asked? Would not it be appropriate to consider easing the movement of animals in areas that are free from foot and mouth disease, but not unaffected by it? I am referring particularly to the movement of cattle from winter quarters to summer pastures, which at present is not possible. Does my hon. Friend also accept that cattle are being moved from my constituency for slaughter in places as far away as Somerset and Essex? Would not opening up local abattoirs make it easier to deal with those animals, and minimise the risk of spreading the disease?

Mr. Breed: There is clearly a case for lifting some of the restrictions, and for redrawing some of the maps to allow some animals to be moved. That would relieve the pressure on the welfare disposal scheme, although there must be no compromise when it comes to ensuring that the disease is not spread. I hope that the Minister for the Environment will deal with that when he responds to the debate, as many farmers find themselves in the situation that my hon. Friend has described.
Farmers who do not have foot and mouth on their farms are also still suffering. In fairness to the Minister, it has to be said that he has acknowledged that and has acted to assure them that they will be assisted. However, if farmers had known what compensation and support they would receive they would not have spent so many weeks feeling so desperate
However, not only farmers have suffered. Other businesses are suffering too, and for help for them we find ourselves turning to a plethora of Government Departments, including the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and of course the Treasury.
The financial measures so far announced by the Government are inadequate, given the depth of the crisis facing thousands of businesses up and down the country. The vast majority of businesses affected have nothing to do with agriculture directly, but foot and mouth has brought much collateral damage that is uninsurable.
The massive loss of business has been concentrated in areas of the country that not only are recovering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy but which are in any case among the poorest areas. The loss of income, jobs and business will devastate the rural economy and have a significant effect on urban communities.
It is therefore especially disappointing that the Government have failed to explain some of the details of their support package. For instance, will any tax deferrals


be subject to interest? I believe that the applicable rate could be as high as 8½ per cent. Will the Government provide any assistance for businesses deeply affected by the crisis which, despite being in or near a rural area, are not located in one of the parishes identified for support?
What about value added tax? The Government have said that the Treasury and Customs and Excise will be "sympathetic", but what does that mean? Sympathy was not what was experienced by one of my constituents who called the Inland Revenue and was told that if he did not pay up the bailiffs would be sent.
At any time of calamity it is right to try and learn lessons and seek new ways forward. However, in many respects, the country and the countryside are now at a crossroads.

Mr. Brian Cotter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the £200 million support package announced by the Government, reinforced two days ago by the Minister for the Environment, seems rather disproportionate given that we expect losses of billions of pounds in trade for tourism and small businesses?

Mr. Breed: The Government have said that that package is a start, and we hope that there will be further proposals, with perhaps some announcements today. The amount of money currently spent will be dwarfed by the cost of the problem: businesses that fail will lead to unemployment, resulting in more unemployment and social security benefits to be paid. If money is paid out to enable those businesses to continue, the Government will not have to find the money to pay for those benefits.
The countryside is at a crossroads. Many commentators recognise the need for a national debate on how to manage food production in the future and ensure that the important rural economy is supported and enhanced, not decimated by this disease outbreak. There will be little future for many farmers and rural businesses if they do not receive adequate emergency financial aid immediately. The Government's modest attempts at emergency support have failed to recognise both the depth and breadth of the problem.
The Liberal Democrats have already published proposals for a combination of rate and tax deferrals, interest-free loans of up to £20,000, repayable over two years, as well as proper compensation for farmers whose business has been affected by foot and mouth but who do not qualify under present compensation rules because their animals have not been slaughtered. Such farmers include those with cattle now more than 30 months old, those who have lost out on agreed sales because they cannot move their animals and those whose cows are now drying off because they have not had access to AI men.
The businesses affected are widespread in their respective activity, geographical location and size, but collectively they are vital to the local economy and must have access to proper packages of financial assistance. The Government's proposals create an artificial divide. It is simply not fair that some are able to receive financial aid and others are not. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify some of the problems that have emerged since the Government's announcements.
Let us take a few moments to consider the crossroads at which our country stands and look back down the road whence we have come to our present situation. Over

40 years of recent history, the word "markets" has kept cropping up. First, there was the Common Market; it introduced the common agricultural policy which was designed to address the future needs of food production in post-war Europe. Its intentions were honourable, but no one now believes anything other than that it has failed and that the continued failure of politicians to carry out meaningful reform over many years has contributed to today's crisis.
The global markets and the growth of international trading, with the freeing up of trade barriers, have produced many benefits but also substantial risks and have played an important part in today's problem. It is obvious that over the years we have become complacent and lowered our guard against this disease because we had not seen it for several decades.
Supermarkets have produced considerable benefits for consumers but their current trading practices have greatly disadvantaged many primary producers. They have contributed to the trend of local cattle market closures up and down the country.
All those factors have combined to bring our agricultural industry and the rural economy to the point of collapse. We cannot turn back the clock to some nostalgic era of Old MacDonald and his farm. The chocolate-box image of country life is not realistic. Foot and mouth disease has created a hiatus in production and we must take this opportunity to consider whether we really believe that we can continue in the same direction with no further thought. Is this a road to national prosperity or is it the road to ruin?
Many people now believe that to continue in the same direction, which would bring about further farm amalgamation and reduction in employment with greater pressure on land and animals to produce more and more for less and less, is a recipe for disaster—both for the rural economy and for the country at large. That is unsustainable. The simplistic attitude that one cannot buck the market and that the lowest unit cost delivers the best consumer benefit would wipe out small family farms and change the fabric of the countryside and its environment, as well as destroying rural communities. Yet that is what we shall sleepwalk into unless we make a radical reassessment of our priorities and unless Government policies across all Departments are attuned to those new priorities.
For many years, the Liberal Democrats have argued that greater prominence should be given to the environmental and social considerations of agriculture. Economies of scale can be created through building farmers' co-operatives and sharing expertise and technology. Money can be recycled within communities by reviving local markets; from farm gate to processor, to retailer to plate—all in the same locality.
Liberal Democrat plans for agriculture include more money for rural development and a single countryside management contract for farm support. We would cut red tape and introduce an early retirement scheme for tenant farmers, linked to a new entrants' scheme, to reinvigorate the industry and bring in new, fresh ideas. We have constantly argued for balance in the UK economy—recognising the value of small business and the interdependence of rural businesses with agriculture at the heart—as well as paying attention to competitiveness and profitability. We need to reinvigorate the countryside and


not see it become dormitory accommodation for city workers, with more intensive methods of production and the loss of a genuinely rural population.
The rural economy is certainly under threat; it has become the victim of a thousand cuts over many years and is quite simply bleeding to death. This latest blow could be terminal, but I believe it is not yet too late—although we may not have much more time. Emergency measures in the wake of foot and mouth will merely stem the bleeding. Only radical policy changes will ultimately restore the countryside to full health. Inevitably, it will take time to achieve that.
What is needed first is a determined effort radically to reform the common agricultural policy; recent—almost cosmetic—changes are not good enough.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The hon. Gentleman has twice mentioned reform of the common agricultural policy. He knows as well as everyone in the House that to reform the CAP in any meaningful way requires unanimity among the 15 nations. How is he going to get that?

Mr. Breed: I was just about to suggest why we may get that co-operation.
The European Union must recognise the risks for everyone's economy in current trading conditions; any state—any European country—could be the next to suffer the same crisis as us. That reality will force more Ministers throughout the EU to realise that the CAP needs early reform.
Money in the CAP should be diverted from paying for production to paying for stewardship. Farm businesses must ultimately be self-supporting in their commercial activity, with Government providing only a safety net to weather storms. However, farmers are asked to do so much more—beyond such economic activity—and for that they must be rewarded.
Secondly, we need to recognise the risks of global trading and ensure that there are vigorous inspection procedures at all ports of entry to identify illegal and possibly contaminated food products, carried both commercially and by travellers, with prosecutions where necessary. We need to acknowledge that the rundown in so many sectors—such as port health authorities, Customs, farm inspections and state veterinary services—was a penny-wise, pound-foolish policy, and that greater resources must now be devoted to those important protections and that they must be maintained.
Thirdly, we need a proper labelling scheme to identify country of origin and to bring an end to misleading labels and practices. That, too, can be considered only on a pan-European basis because food has become such an international commodity. However, it can be achieved through firm negotiation.
Fourthly, we must use the existing options open to us to promote sustainable, safe and ethically produced food. That should include a more imaginative use of modulated funds for rural development to support the structure of family farms; an increase in the number of small, local abattoirs; and the creation of new local markets for their produce, recognising the important social, environmental and human health benefits that each can, in turn, provide.
The larger agribusinesses will, of course, continue, and their trading practices and scale of production will continue to make them best suited to supply the larger food processors and supermarkets. However, by supporting local markets, we will ensure greater consumer choice—not just a choice between Asda and Tesco, but the choice to purchase locally grown food from a range of local shops and markets or to patronise the supermarkets.
Our aim must be to ensure that in this country we grow safe, sustainable and ethically produced food that gives primary producers a fair return on their investment and a proper reward for their labour, after which competition should ensure that the consumer pays the lowest price. However, to achieve both those aims, the balance between supplier and retailer will need to be redressed, and there must be an end to the complex monopolies that were identified in the recent Competition Commission report on the supermarkets.
We need a retail regulator to be appointed, as part of the Office of Fair Trading, to ensure the dominance of one sector cannot be abused, with the consequences that we have seen in recent years.
A cheap food policy, which, every few years, entails massive compensation payments, business failures and the desecration of our environment, is in fact extremely expensive for the taxpayer and consumers, and makes life a misery for many small suppliers. It is, of course, very profitable for supermarket shareholders.
It is also time to review completely the uniform business rate, which now is subject to so many dispensations and anomalies and is so disproportionately unfair to small businesses that only a complete reappraisal of how we raise local business tax will do. The rural economy is made up almost entirely of small businesses, and they have been very hard hit by the UBR.
When this terrible crisis is indeed under control, it will not be enough to learn lessons about its administration and management. To write another report, such as that of 1967, the recommendations of which were observed for a few years and then forgotten, will not be enough. The end of the crisis will present an opportunity to build on a real vision of what the future of agriculture and the rural economy should hold. According to that, through a combination of sensible regulation, deployment of resources and a recognition of the vital part played by a balanced agricultural sector, we can deliver what the consumer wants, in a countryside that is attractive and sustainable, while ensuring that we do not again threaten the lives and livelihoods of those who rely upon this green and pleasant land.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'notes that the current foot and mouth crisis has impacted upon a wide range of rural businesses and services, affecting many aspects of rural life; further notes that foot and mouth has hit a countryside that has suffered from lack of investment under previous governments; agrees that the first priority must be the isolation, control and eradication of foot and mouth disease; endorses the Government's commitment to rural communities as set out in the Rural White Paper and the England Rural Development Programme; welcomes the extra financial help the Government has made available to farmers and rural businesses affected by foot and mouth,


including agrimonetary compensation for livestock farmers and the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme; welcomes the work of the Rural Task Force including its work to open up the countryside and business relief, deferral of tax and national insurance contributions, extension of the small firms loan guarantee scheme and new grants to Regional Development Agencies and tourism authorities; and calls on the Government to continue putting in place the long-term policies needed to regenerate British agriculture and revitalise the rural economy as a whole.'.
I am sure that today's debate, which is entitled "The Rural Economy", will focus largely on the impact of foot and mouth disease on the rural economy. Indeed, that is reflected in the motion and the amendments that have been tabled. Foot and mouth disease has been an enormous blow to the farming community and the wider rural community.
All hon. Members feel huge sympathy for those farmers who have lost their animals and for all those who are suffering in rural areas and, in some cases, even beyond. Indeed, looking around the Chamber, I can see on both sides Members who represent constituencies that have been devastated by the disease. They have been greatly affected and have maintained regular contact with their constituents and, therefore, know at first hand the difficulties involved.

Mr. Steve Webb: As the right hon. Lady looks around the Chamber, she sees Members with urban and rural constituencies, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) made the very good point that the businesses that have suffered are not necessarily in what the Government call rural constituencies. Will she extend the rate relief scheme to all the businesses that are suffering, regardless of the arbitrary authority in which they happen to be?

Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who heads the rural taskforce, will respond to the debate. He made a statement in answer to a private notice question earlier in the week, and he will pick up the points made in this debate. However, the rural taskforce is doing a good job not only in the measures that it has already announced, but because it is taking stock of the situation as it develops. One point that has come home to us strongly is that, although some of the earlier predictions have come true, some of them were unfounded. Some attractions have done better than expected while others have done worse. For that reason, it is important continually to monitor the position and to be prepared to take measures as and when appropriate.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: On that point, will the right hon. Lady clarify the position in Scotland and in England? Is she aware that in Scotland the insane policy of slaughtering the hefted Cheviot flock will result, if it continues at the present rate, in the destruction of the entire flock? It is an irreplaceable asset in the Scottish economy. However, I understand that a different method is being used in, for example, Northumberland. Will she clarify the position and explain whether it is the same north and south of the border?

Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman said, "On that point", but his intervention raised an entirely different one. None the less, it is an important issue. As a Northumbrian, I am keen to ensure that the flocks of Cheviots on both sides

of the border have the best possible chance of survival. That is why I support the measures that the Government have taken. He overstates the differences between north and south of the border. Discussions are taking place between the Administrations to try to ensure that we approach the problem in as co-ordinated a fashion as possible. However, we are conscious of the important issue that he has raised.
There are welcome signs that our efforts to bear down on the disease are achieving results. The continuing downward trend in the daily number of cases is particularly encouraging. It has gone down from an average of 43 per day in the week ending Sunday 1 April to 16 per day in the week ending Sunday 22 April. There were 13 more cases on Monday of this week and 13 yesterday. The House will be aware of some of the more encouraging statements about the course of the disease that were made last week by the Government's chief scientific adviser, Professor King. Following rigorous serological testing of all farms in the relevant areas, we have been able to lift infected area status from nine areas entirely. Others will follow in the days and weeks ahead.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister explain—perhaps later in her speech—the criteria for lifting the restrictions in certain areas? I have been told that restrictions have been lifted in certain counties that have had outbreaks but not in others. There seems to be inconsistency in the way in which the Government are lifting movement restrictions.

Ms Quin: I am not aware of an inconsistency in approach. Guidance is available, and information is available on the MAFF website. Information has also been published about how restricted area status can be lifted. If the hon. Gentleman has specific examples, I would be grateful if he would draw them to my attention or that of another Minister so that we can respond to him. An overall framework is in place—it is partly a European as well as a UK framework—and I have seen the clear advice that farmers have received.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is no cause for complacency and that we still face a crisis. In that context, when will the Government come to a decision on vaccination? Does she accept that the president of the National Farmers Union does not speak for all farmers and that the view that he advances is hotly contested by many in rural communities? The Government are there to lead; when will we have some leadership?

Ms Quin: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must not be complacent in dealing with the disease. Indeed, one of the lessons of the 1967 outbreak of which we are very conscious is the fact that, during that outbreak, there was a lull and guard was relaxed. The disease broke out again, so we must be careful that that does not happen in this case.
I have discussed vaccination with farmers around the country and many are not in favour of it, so the president of the NFU is reflecting their opinions. However, farmers and other groups are divided on the issue, sometimes within the same region. Even people in the hot-spot areas are divided. That makes the decision difficult. Despite


criticisms from other parties, I notice that they have not made a clear policy statement on vaccination. That has been apparent in their media interviews.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the Department seriously consider the vaccination of specialist breed sheep, in particular the herdwick sheep that will secure the survival of the breed? Many people in the Lakeland whom I respect have told me that that is possible without compromising our position on vaccination.

Ms Quin: That is an important aspect of the debate. However, other measures and guidance are being made available on rare and specialist breeds. In particular, we want to provide adequate bio-security measures so that the animals are kept separate from possible infectivity.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Not hefted sheep.

Ms Quin: That could include hefted sheep if they are kept on their territory and separate from infectivity.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: The Minister will be aware that Ben Gill, the president of the NFU, is worried about the apparent inconsistency in the Government's policy on vaccination. That causes great stress in the countryside, especially among farmers. Will she seriously consider ensuring that a clear statement is sent to all farmers to explain the Government's position and the rationale behind it? I am sure that farmers would be grateful for that because the uncertainty is posing a considerable challenge to mental well-being in the countryside.

Ms Quin: That is either being done or about to be done. We are conscious of the need to communicate with individual farmers directly on this important issue.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I believe that no matter what the Government say, they will not persuade the NFU to accept vaccination. As an MP from one of the hot spots, I favour vaccination. Obviously we will try to keep cattle in sheds for as long as possible, but are the Government still considering a fodder policy?

Ms Quin: We are certainly considering the problems of fodder supply to some farmers in areas where they are being encouraged to keep animals housed for longer than usual.

Mr. John Bercow: I acknowledge that there are different opinions on vaccination, but does the Minister accept that many farmers, such as Graham Gulliver, a prominent farmer in Preston Bissett in my constituency, are worried that their motives are being unfairly misrepresented? Will she acknowledge that many of those farmers who are hesitant, to put it mildly, about vaccination are not being awkward or cussed; rather they are concerned about the future saleability of their stock and the importance of ensuring compensation for consequential loss?

Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman's comments bear out my contact with farmers in different parts of the country.

We have not been imputing particular motives to farmers. A genuine debate about vaccination is taking place. Many of the market-related concerns are, without question, important. They have been a factor in our consideration of the problem and our unwillingness to impose a policy about which there are so many severe doubts.
Government policy has been based at all times on the best scientific advice. That advice was that we needed to pursue vigorously the cull on infected premises within 24 hours and on neighbouring farms within 48 hours, which we have been achieving in many areas. Those policies have clearly been effective, as shown by the falling number of cases.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I was close to the Northumberland outbreak in 1967. Does the Minister agree that in that outbreak, immediate on-farm burial within 24 hours, rather than the use of mass burial sites, contained the disease? I have a huge problem on the uplands in my constituency, where 2,000 carcases were to be buried. That caused alarm, and there was a build-up of carcases when the spread of the disease could have been stopped.

Ms Quin: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and the concerns expressed by his constituents. None the less, we cannot make a straightforward comparison with 1967, when there were many outbreaks over a long period. When farms were smaller and we did not have the current environmental regulations, on-farm burial was a different option. We would be severely criticised if we allowed on-farm burial contrary to the environmental regulations that the House has adopted and which in many cases are part of European Union directives that we have freely and willingly entered into. For that reason, disposal routes are complex and giver rise to problems in many areas.

Mr. A. J. Beith: May I draw the Minister's attention to communities, which she knows, around Widdringon, Chevington and Cresswell in Northumberland that have seen thousands of animals burned in a beauty spot at Druridge bay and 100,000 carcases buried at Widdrington? Does she recognise that they need a break because they have been dealing with the problems of the whole region? There could also be some compensation, such as a council tax reduction for a year. There must be a mechanism by which we can recognise that those people have borne the brunt of the sacrifice.

Ms Quin: I know the area well and I understand people's concerns, but I must say that the conditions under which animals were disposed of there were not unilaterally thought up by the Ministry of Agriculture but agreed by all the parties concerned, including the Environment Agency. Various requirements for siting were met, including those on wind conditions. Wind does change direction, but it is easier now than in 1967 to predict it, and we have used that knowledge very effectively.
We have made good progress in the last week or two towards clearing slaughter and disposal backlogs. It was clear that we were not keeping up with the numbers


reported, but now there is a serious backlog only in Devon and that is being reduced by the day. There are no significant disposal backlogs in other areas.

Mr. Burnett: As the Minister knows, there is a problem in my constituency and in Devon more widely. She said that we should not be complacent. It is reported today that her Ministry's director of operations for the south-west has moved. Who is the new south-west director of operations?

Ms Quin: I have not seen that report, but the directors of operations, who have been working very hard, are entitled to a break in their activities. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the operations directorate in Devon is a crucial part of the fight against foot and mouth disease. The arrangements in Devon to co-ordinate the efforts of the Ministry, the Army and the veterinary service will be fully effective and his constituents will not lose out from any temporary changes in the occupancy of the regional director's office.

Mr. David Curry: The right hon. Lady will agree that it is important to try to keep rural businesses going in the crisis. Hon. Members have mentioned rural abattoirs. Is she aware of the extent to which the welfare slaughter scheme is dislocating the market for slaughter of animals for human consumption? There are abattoirs in the north of England that cannot obtain stock for slaughter even under the Government's rules because the prices under the welfare slaughter scheme, in which animals are bulked up and priced deadweight, are much more advantageous than those offered for live weight in the marketplace. Small businesses will not be helped if they cannot get hold of the animals, even when encouraged to do so.

Ms Quin: Thanks to the television in my office in the Ministry of Agriculture, I followed the interesting exchange on that subject earlier this week between the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, who explained our approach to the welfare scheme, and particularly the reason why we introduced a new complementary scheme to allow meat to go into the food chain from infected areas. My right hon. Friend outlined various ways in which he wanted to proceed with the welfare scheme, and I know that he may well have more to say about that in the next few days.
On disposal, I should like to repeat the assurance that public safety must be our first priority. The Department of Health is leading work on the safe disposal of carcases; it is providing advice for those involved in disposal and, of course, additional guidance for the public. Last week, we announced further measures to ease farm welfare problems. I have just responded to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) regarding the movement of healthy animals from surveillance zones; those animals can now be slaughtered for human consumption. Farmers will be able to move animals in a wider range of circumstances than previously. Although the movements require licences, local veterinary inspectors can now issue those.
We are aware that the livestock welfare disposal scheme made a slow start, but we are now getting on top of the backlog and expect to clear it in the next few weeks. I believe that approximately 53,000 animals were

disposed of under the scheme in the first week of April, but the figure rose to 150,000 last week, which is a considerable improvement, and I acknowledge the efforts of everyone involved.

Dr. Peter Brand: The Minister will realise that my island constituency has been free of foot and mouth so far, and we hope to keep it that way through rigid barrier controls at our ferry ports. However, there is a problem, as it costs at least £300 to take animals from farm to abattoir, irrespective of the number taken. A collection point proposal has been put to her office but. apparently, the response was that, so far, there has been no time to consider such a proposal. Will she look at the proposal because the issue is becoming a serious problem for my farmers?

Ms Quin: I will look at that issue again and write to the hon. Gentleman. However, our earlier reservations about collection points were based largely on veterinary advice on disease control. I will check whether that advice has changed, but I am not aware that it has.
A minute ago, I said that I would like to pay tribute to those who, in many cases, are working round the clock in disease control centres. I should very much like to stress that point, partly because of the many dispiriting and negative stories that affect people on the ground. I know that bad news is news and that good news is not news but, none the less, many things have been handled well, correctly and sensitively. Often, the people who carry out that work do not get the recognition that they deserve. In a previous incarnation I had ministerial responsibility for prisons, and I remember that people who often work in difficult circumstances on rehabilitating prisoners day in, day out get little public thanks, but the minute that something goes wrong, they find themselves all over the media, which can be distressing. There are parallels with the problem that we now face.
It was good to see in one of my local newspapers recently a notice inserted by a family whose animals had been lost as a result of foot and mouth thanking Ministry staff for the way in which they had dealt with that. I was rather amused to note on a visit to the Intervention Board that someone had faxed an ode to the staff to thank them for the way that they had dealt with his application under the livestock welfare scheme.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there have been great difficulties with the Intervention Board? I represent a Welsh area, and it is difficult to find an official who deals with Wales. I have had problems that involve one of my constituents, Mr. Barry Lewis. After two weeks, he found that his application form had been lost. Eventually he had his stock slaughtered, only to be told the next day that it would be slaughtered this coming week. There have been serious problems, so will my right hon. Friend undertake a serious review of the board's workings?

Ms Quin: What I said was said sincerely. I was not trying to disguise the fact that there have been difficulties and problems. Problems have been referred to me and to other Ministers. I am prepared to consider lessons of organisation. None the less, Ministry and Intervention Board staff have had to operate many different schemes at short notice—for example, the short-term movement


scheme, the long-distance movement scheme and the livestock welfare disposal scheme. They have had to deal also with the slaughtering and disposal of infected animals and the problems related to contiguous farms and premises. It has been difficult to deal with those issues.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I agree with the right hon. Lady when she pays tribute to those who are working so hard and who have answered our calls with great courtesy. However, on organisation, will she clarify the exact relationship between the Prime Minister, COBR—Cobra—the Ministry of Defence, MAFF and, above all, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which controls the Environment Agency? There seem to be conflicting claims and differences of opinion on who takes decisions.

Ms Quin: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not find this difficult. Many Departments are involved when there is such an outbreak. He referred, for example, to health, environment, agriculture and Army issues. Given the Army's involvement, the co-ordination that COBR provides is important. Given the scale of the problem that we face, it would be astonishing if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister were not personally fully engaged.

Mr. David Heath: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Quin: I am conscious of the need to make some progress. I will give way for the last time. If I continued to give way, I would be denying Members the chance to speak.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Lady has been extremely generous in giving way and I am grateful to her.
The right hon. Lady knows that the Ministry has made draft proposals, which I support, for banning the feeding of swill to pigs. However, the draft orders appear to include whey feeding, which is crucial to the pig industry and the cheese-making industry. There seems to be no evidential basis for banning the feeding of whey to pigs. Can she assure me that the Ministry does not intend to crucify those industries for no good reason?

Ms Quin: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not out to crucify the cheese-making industry. Knowing the excellence and variety of British cheeses, I am keen to see the industry expand. The consultation period on pig swill has expired, and we are considering the results. The issue that he mentioned has been raised, along with others, and an announcement will be made shortly about the results of the consultation and how we intend to proceed.
I conclude by referring to the part of the motion that concerns the need to consider long-term policies for agriculture and the rural sector. Both the motion and the Government's amendment mention long-term policies, although the official Opposition's amendment, which simply refers to immediate measures, does not. The long-term perspective is important. The Government are already active in that respect, both within the United Kingdom in terms of developing agriculture and rural policies, and in the European Union, where we are building specific alliances.
Despite the reservations expressed in an earlier intervention, agricultural reform is gaining momentum in the European Union, partly because of changes in attitude among certain Governments in Europe, partly because of the pressure from the World Trade Organisation, partly because of the expansion of the EU to take in countries of central and eastern Europe, and partly because of the concerns of the consumer and environmental considerations.
The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) rightly mentioned the various aspects of agriculture. Agriculture is about food production, and we are keen to ensure that our producers identify markets and opportunities for the future. At the same time, agriculture is about stewardship of the countryside, and we believe that the countryside and environmental aspects need to be factored even more fully into policy, particularly European policy.
I am optimistic about that. We have a better chance of agricultural reform in that direction now than at any time that those of us who have been dealing in various ways with the common agricultural policy can remember. That is encouraging. I can assure the House that we will be extremely active in pursuing that debate.
I welcome today's debate. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture hopes to make a statement on foot and mouth disease tomorrow. I believe that we are tackling the disease, as the figures now show. I believe that we are supporting the wider rural economy and taking forward the debate on the future of agricultural and rural policies in our country. For all those reasons, I strongly commend the Government's amendment.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on holding this afternoon's debate. It is the first chance that the House has had to consider foot and mouth disease after a two and a half week gap, part of which was the Easter recess. It is disappointing that in the nine weeks since the crisis started, there has not yet been a single debate in the House in Government time. There have been two full days of debate provided by the Conservative Opposition, and now half a day provided by the Liberal Democrats. Whether, contrary to what the Minister of State said, that reflects some reluctance on the Government's part to deal with the issues in Parliament and to be accountable to Parliament, others will judge.
I warmly welcome the more hopeful signs that have emerged in the past few days in relation to the scale of the crisis. Any progress that is being made towards getting control of the outbreak is very good news. I shall examine in a moment the extent of that progress and the reasons why it may have taken place.
In the two and a half weeks since the House last debated foot and mouth disease, there have continued to be a great many heart-rending stories of its tragic effects. I am sure that the entire House will want to join me in sending a clear message of sympathy and support to every family in the land who have suffered as a result of the disease or who may still face a threat from foot and mouth disease as it approaches their farm. That support must also extend, as the right hon. Lady said, to those who are working to contain the outbreak and clear up the terrible backlog of animals awaiting slaughter and of carcases awaiting disposal.
That backlog results directly from the Government's failure to act more promptly and effectively in the early stages of the crisis. It results from their refusal to bring in the Army at the time when we suggested it, and their refusal then to give the Army full control of operations on the ground, which seems to be happening belatedly and by stealth. The efforts made by service personnel, as well as by vets, slaughtermen and many others at the sharp end, are very much appreciated.
This week's news that a human case of foot and mouth disease may have occurred is, however, a worrying new development. The risks to personnel who are dealing with carcase disposal, and in particular with carcases that may explode, cannot be ignored. I hope that the Government will review the procedures that are being followed in order to minimise the risk of further human cases of foot and mouth disease.
I need hardly say that the confirmation that foot and mouth disease can affect humans, which contrasts with some earlier official statements and assurances, risks undermining some of the efforts that have been made in the past couple of weeks to boost the fortunes of our flagging tourism industry.

Ms Quin: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's comment is justified. He will know that there is on record a case of foot and mouth that occurred in a human in the 1967 outbreak. Thus, although such an occurrence is extremely rare, it is not impossible, and I do not think that anyone has said otherwise.

Mr. Yeo: I am afraid that one of the mistakes that the Government have made almost throughout the crisis is to sound too optimistic and complacent about what is happening. Those of us who genuinely have the long-term interests of the tourism industry and rural businesses at heart know that nothing causes more damage than raising false expectations, which especially affect the tourism market, whether in north America or elsewhere. It was claimed frequently that the disease was under control when the number of cases was a tiny fraction of that which was reached at the end of March, but the fact that those claims were so patently unfounded at the time when they were made has reduced the effectiveness of the efforts of Ministers and other officials to try to rebuild confidence. Ignoring problems that are occurring, such as the one to which I have just referred, does nothing whatever to stimulate demand for visits to this country in places such as north America.
At the start of April, I set out the four criteria that should be used to judge whether the crisis has been resolved. First, the number of confirmed cases that arise daily should he on a clear downward trend. Secondly, the 24-hour report-to-slaughter target time for infected animals should be met. Thirdly, the geographical spread of the disease should be reversed. Fourthly, the movement restrictions on healthy animals should be lifted. When all four criteria have been achieved, farming can be said to have returned to normal. [Interruption.] I hear someone on the Labour Benches saying that all those conditions have been met. I can only say that that is an extraordinarily ignorant comment, and exactly the sort of remark about which I complained earlier. Anyone who has travelled in the countryside, especially in the west country, will know such a view is very far from correct.
Let us examine each criterion. First, as the Minister of State pointed out, progress has now been made on the number of cases that are confirmed daily. That is good news. However, will she or the Minister for the Environment tell us whether the presentation of today's figures is consistent with that of earlier ones? On Monday, Baroness Hayman wrote to my noble Friend Baroness Byford. Her letter stated that, although there had been 1,435 confirmed cases, there were 5,385 affected farms, so the number of farmers whose animals are being slaughtered is obviously substantially greater than the number of confirmed cases. On the same day, the chief veterinary officer was giving different figures to the Agriculture Committee. In view of that discrepancy, will the Minister of State confirm that no change has been made to the basis on which the figures are calculated?
On the second of my four criteria—the 24-hour report-to-slaughter target for infected animals—progress has again clearly been made, but it is hard to judge precisely how much, as the daily data for the past few days do not appear entirely credible. After several weeks when the daily reports suggested that approximately 30,000 to 40,000 animals a day were being slaughtered, Government figures appeared to claim that 700,000 animals were slaughtered in four days. That is approximately five times the rate that had been achieved previously.
After weeks of carcase disposals at a maximum rate of 40,000 a day, Government figures suggested that more than 1 million carcases were disposed of in five days. I assume that the figures involved some catching up, and that under-recording in the earlier period has led to bunching. However, that reduces the value of the figures, at least for the time being. It would be helpful if the Minister of State could confirm that the basis for the calculations has not been changed. I hope that that is case. If so, perhaps the Government could publish backdated daily figures that incorporate the revisions so that we can judge the trend. We cannot do that at the moment because of the bunching. If the data have been revised, it should be possible to produce more accurate daily figures. That would enable us to judge the trend more confidently.
The daily figures are relevant to assessing whether the target of 24 hours from report to slaughter is being met. I hope that information will continue to be given to hon. Members. On three occasions during the last three days before the Easter recess, I asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for an assurance that daily statistics would be published throughout the recess. We received no answer to those requests, and the daily figures were discontinued in the first week. After several days of widely reported protests from the Conservative party and others who were worried about the matter, the Government relented and began publishing the daily totals again. Discontinuing the information makes it hard to judge what the current pattern shows. Figures should be published on the same basis as in the early period.
It would also be helpful if the Government broke down the confirmed cases by constituency. I appreciate that individual Members of Parliament are notified, but if we are approaching a general election campaign, it is important to provide public information about the constituencies where cases are confirmed. Thus all the candidates can be informed in the same way as Members of Parliament are currently notified.
The third criterion is the reversal of the geographical spread. Again, I acknowledge that some progress has been made and that the Government have published a list of areas that can be declared free of infection. However, some setbacks have occurred, for example, in Glamorgan, which was previously free of infection. The overall picture is therefore mixed. Matters are improving, but the trend is not all one way.
The fourth criterion covers the movement restrictions on healthy animals. Again, I welcome the steps that have been taken to reduce them, but the Minister of State knows that curbs remain in place in many areas. They are needed and it is right to maintain them. I agree that there is a risk of premature relaxation, for understandable reasons, and that there is much pressure to lift the restrictions. No one wants to make the mistake that was made in the previous outbreak, when restrictions were relaxed too quickly in some places. The disease might begin to spread again as a consequence. We therefore support the retention of controls until it is clearly safe to lift them.
However, until the restrictions are lifted, it cannot be said that farming has returned to normal. Many farmers are finding it difficult to run their businesses as they would like, taking account of the seasonal factors.

Mr. David Borrow: Does the hon. Gentleman now believe that the outbreak is under control? He talks about lifting movement restrictions. If he were Minister, under what circumstances would he lift restrictions completely? Would he wait until there were no further incidences, or for a period after the final outbreak? Under what circumstances would he deem that movement restrictions could be lifted and therefore that the outbreak was under control according to his definition?

Mr. Yeo: I believe that most members of the public would judge whether the crisis had been resolved according to the criteria that I have set out. I share the Minister of State's view that it is impossible to lift all movement restrictions as quickly as some people would like because we rightly do not want to run any risk of a renewed spread of infection. However, it is impossible to say that the crisis has been resolved while those restrictions remain. A significant number of farmers are unable to operate their businesses as they normally would while such restrictions exist, and to claim that everything is back to normal when restrictions of that sort are still in place seems quite unreasonable.
Taking account of all those criteria, I do not believe that it is possible to say, as of today, that the crisis has been resolved or even that foot and mouth disease is fully under control. It is certainly not under control in Devon, to which I paid a visit last week. There, in particular, the problem of carcase disposal is still enormous. That is a symbol of the Government's failure to take control of this problem quickly. In Devon, there is still a huge backlog of carcases awaiting disposal, and it cannot be ignored. To ignore it would be environmentally damaging.
The rendering option, which was initially the Government's preferred solution, sometimes involves taking infected carcases through uninfected areas, running

a risk of spreading the infection. In any case, the rendering capacity is clearly unable to deal with the scale of problem that now exists. Incineration, which appears to be the Government's other preferred option, is also environmentally hazardous, as people now increasingly recognise. Mass burial also carries its own health and environmental difficulties, and raises important questions about local consent and the acceptability of some of the proposals that are now under consideration.
We have said several times—and I remain of this view—that the better option. right from the start, is on-farm burial. That was the clear message of the 1967 report. The Minister of State quite reasonably made the point that environmental concerns have evolved since then. Nevertheless, what should have happened at the earliest stage of the outbreak was immediate consultation between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Environment Agency. The agency should have been asked to identify areas where it would not be possible to have on-farm burial because of a high water table or other factors. On-farm burial should have been the preferred option everywhere else.
On-farm burial allows the problem to be dealt with in manageable proportions. Instead of hundreds of thousands of carcases being transported to one particular site, a number of much smaller-scale sites could be used. Indeed, there could be more than one site on one farm if necessary.

Mr. Peter Luff: rose—

Mr. Win Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Yeo: I shall give way in a moment.
On-farm burial would have been the right option. That was the conclusion in 1967, and it was the recommendation that we gave. Unfortunately, our advice was ignored.

Mr. Luff: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about on-farm burial. The failure of the Government to implement that policy has landed my constituents near Throckmorton airfield with a mass burial site that will have to take upwards of a quarter of a million carcases, and possibly many more if the absolutely abhorrent proposal to bring carcases from Devon to Worcestershire is pursued by the Government. The Government are not making their task any easier by failing to answer my parliamentary questions on the subject. Before the recess, I tabled about 30 questions and I have had no substantial answers to any of them. My constituents adjacent to that site are extremely anxious.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are meant to be brief.

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend raises a most important point on parliamentary questions. I have checked, and I have 15 questions to the Minister outstanding, nearly all of which were tabled before the end of March. After the recess, it was quite reasonable for Members on both sides of the House to expect that the questions that they had tabled some time earlier would have been answered on Monday this week.
The other point of which my hon. Friend reminds me is that if there are concerns about on-farm burial, it would be interesting to know whether the Environment Agency has carried out any studies to find out what the long-term effects were of the on-farm burial that was successfully carried out in 1967, and to see whether any damaging effects have occurred.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that there have been huge changes since 1967? Furthermore, as far as I am aware, the Environment Agency scoured the countryside in the infected areas in Wales to find suitable burial points, and failed to do so. The hon. Gentleman has underlined just how difficult it is to deal with the problem, and he should admit that the Government have done a damned good job in very difficult circumstances.

Mr. Yeo: I do not think that anyone looking at the piles of carcases in Devon could agree with that last sentiment. I understand that the chief executive of the Environment Agency has said that a number of sites that could be used are not being used at present.

Mr. Paterson: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) may be interested to know that I held a meeting with vets who had worked during 1967 and vets working currently. When large numbers of cattle were buried on-farm in Cheshire and north Shropshire, no detrimental effects on human health were recorded. My hon. Friend is right to ask for an investigation of whether any records were kept for those sites, and what the environmental consequences were. That was the clear recommendation of the 1967 report, and of the vets in Wem four weeks ago.

Mr. Yeo: I entirely agree. I certainly do not consider it adequate, nine weeks into the current outbreak, simply to parrot the objection that on-farm burials involve environmental difficulties, unless it is backed up by proper studies and assessments that reveal risks of which we were not previously aware.
Let me now turn to measures taken to curb the spread of the disease. It appears that, belatedly, slaughter on suspicion—for which, again, we called at an early stage—is now being employed, and that it has been crucial to better progress.

Ms Quin: Slaughter on clinical signs—in other words, slaughter on suspicion—was taking place before the hon. Gentleman suggested it.

Mr. Yeo: That statement will, I think, be disputed by a great many farmers.
Will the Minister of State explain some things to me? A case that may have appeared to be a confirmed case of foot and mouth disease may not have been recorded as such, because slaughter has taken place before confirmation of the infection has been obtained. If, in such circumstances, there has been a slaughter on suspicion, is there then a cull on contiguous farms, even if the infection has not been confirmed? When a case is confirmed and a cull on contiguous farms takes place, are the animals culled on those contiguous premises tested? If those animals are burned, is it the case that evidence that could show whether foot and mouth is under control or is still spreading may sometimes be destroyed by incineration?
The abiding impression gained by those who visit problem areas such as Devon—this is not just my experience, but the experience of every visitor to whom I have spoken—is that, even now, no one is really in charge. The Ministry is saying one thing, the vets are saying another, and the Environment Agency is saying something else. Unfortunately, when I was in Devon last week the Minister blocked my request to talk to Ministry vets. Two days before my visit I checked with the Minister's private office, and was told that I would not be allowed to enter the regional office in Exeter. I was not seeking any confidential information; if I had been, I would of course have approached the Minister himself. I simply wanted to hear the assessment of vets on the ground in an area where matters are clearly not under control.
Foot and mouth disease is not just a problem for farmers with infected animals; others are threatened too, and I am afraid that the Government's dither over vaccination has not helped. I accept that this is not an easy decision to make—opinion is divided among farmers, among vets and among scientists—but it is the job of Ministers to make such difficult decisions.
Some weeks ago, I set out three tests on which to assess whether vaccination should take place. Will vaccination eradicate foot and mouth disease more quickly than the present policies? Will vaccination reduce the number of animals that eventually have to be slaughtered? Will vaccination bring forward the date on which Britain regains disease-free status? I said then, and I say again now, that if the answer to at least two of those questions is yes, vaccination is clearly the right policy. If the answer to two or more of those questions is no, vaccination is not the right answer. If the Minister accepts that those are the right tests, what scientific advice has been given about them? If the Minister does not accept that those are the right tests, what tests are the Government applying to determine the policy?
It is now nearly four weeks since Downing street said that a decision on vaccination would be made in 48 hours. We are still waiting and the delay suggests confusion at the highest level in Government. Last week, the Government appeared to be edging towards a policy of vaccinating dairy cattle in Cumbria and Devon, without explaining how that would help or how it would work. Now they are backing away from that, in the face of a seeming veto exercised by the NFU. Who is making the policy? Is it the Minister, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence—who apparently now chairs the Cobra meetings—or is it the president of the NFU?

Mr. Borrow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Professor David King, the chief scientific adviser who is advising the Prime Minister on vaccination, made it clear that he would only support vaccination were it to be supported by the vast majority of farmers? In his scientific advice, the consent of the farming community is crucial. Is it also crucial to the hon. Gentleman's decision making?

Mr. Yeo: I find that an extraordinary way to make policy. A policy is either right or wrong. I have set out three straightforward tests by which the policy should be judged. If the Government think that those are the right tests, let them tell us what the advice is. If the tests are wrong, the Government should tell us what tests they are


applying, but they should not have a policy that they are afraid to introduce if some people disagree with it. That sums up new Labour Government.
Many uninfected animals are suffering as a direct result of the foot and mouth crisis. Healthy animals cannot be moved because of the movement restrictions. Lambs are in the wrong places, pigs suffer overcrowding and much distress is caused. The Minister of State will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) proposed a welfare scheme in the first debate we had on this subject, on 28 February. The Government's scheme, when it emerged some weeks later, was welcome, but the evidence is that it is not working very quickly.
I heard this week from a farmer whom I visited in November, long before the foot and mouth crisis began. That farmer is within 3 km of an infected premises and, therefore, could not move any of her pigs. In a letter she faxed to me on Monday, she described the horrifying consequences of the overcrowding among her pigs, including tail biting and fighting. She was running out of money and feed, she could not borrow any more money and she had already extended her feed credit. She had written twice to her Member of Parliament, who had not replied. She contacted me because she had entered her pigs on the welfare disposal scheme three weeks ago and, as of Monday morning when she faxed me the letter, she had not received a response. I telephoned her, because her experience is by no means an isolated one. I am glad to say that matters have been resolved, because she has had a form D imposed and her pigs will be slaughtered on the farm.

Mr. Bercow: Who is the guilty Member?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend tempts me, but I shall not say. I wish to proceed courteously, so when I have had the chance to inform the Member concerned I may consider advising my hon. Friend.
One way in which to help to unblock the logjam of welfare cases would be to give local vets a greater role in authorising movements, and I believe that the Government have now adopted that suggestion. I am concerned that the Government have still not offered compensation to farmers who are prevented from selling their cattle as they approach the age of 30 months. Through no fault of their own, those farmers suffer an irrecoverable drop in the value of their stock when cattle pass that age and they deserve to be compensated for that loss. I hope that the Minister will address that issue quickly.
The Minister for the Environment is to wind up the debate, and it was he who announced some weeks ago that an inquiry would be held into the foot and mouth disease outbreak. I hope that he will be able to tell the House this evening about the nature and form of the inquiry that he has in mind.
It is now nine weeks into the crisis. Foot and mouth disease has inflicted hideous damage on farmers, tourism and the rest of the rural economy. The taxpayer is left with a huge bill. Our environment has been disfigured. Millions of animals, many of them healthy, have been slaughtered. Many other animals have suffered.

The public have understandably been angered by the waste and distress involved. In due course, it will be possible to judge whether much of that suffering and damage could have been avoided. It is noticeable that in Ireland a swift, effective and co-ordinated response to the disease prevented a large-scale national catastrophe of the kind that we have experienced in Britain. I fear that it is already clear that if the Government had examined the lessons of the 1967 outbreak, taken the steps that I and others suggested at each stage in the crisis and reacted quickly on the scale and with the urgency that was needed, the disease would never have been spread so far, the cost would not have been so great and the damage would not have been so devastating. The time will come when those events are analysed and those responsible are called to account.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If those hon. Members wishing to contribute to the debate make their contributions brief, more will be able to catch my eye.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The House, and the country, will have noted that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) did not tell us whether he was for or against vaccination.
The foot and mouth outbreak has been the most difficult issue that I have faced in 22 years as a Member of Parliament. I have more than 50 cases in my constituency, and the local tourism industry faces a crisis. Some 47,000 people in the county of Cumbria are directly or indirectly dependent on tourism. The trade is worth nearly £1 billion a year to our county. Some 20 per cent. of the total work force in Cumbria is involved in activity related to tourism. I believe that in terms of the effect on tourism, I have probably the worst affected constituency in Britain.
There has been no post-Easter recovery in my constituency. We have had a couple of good days, but we still have a real crisis. The figures that are reported to my office daily vary between a 60 per cent. and a 90 per cent. reduction in turnover, and the laundries and catering establishments in my constituency, which give me important information about the situation, report a substantial downturn in trade.
Cumbria has reacted positively. We have given evidence to the national taskforce through our own taskforce and we have called for a rural action zone. The meetings held in Kendal by the Cumbria taskforce are extremely important to Members of Parliament, and we are pressing its case for support for infrastructure costs in the future.

Mr. Burnett: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and I can tell him that the circumstances that he is adumbrating are mirrored on Dartmoor, which is at a standstill.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is in a similar position. The answer is the restoration of trade, but we could introduce interim measures. Cumbria Crisis Alliance, a grassroots organisation that has sprung up in my constituency,


and the local chambers of trade have produced some innovative thinking, some of which has already been reported to Ministers. We are thankful for the first stage measures introduced by Ministers on rate relief and tax concessions, and I have several recommendations for second stage measures that I hope the Treasury will seriously consider.
First, there should be an extension of the hardship relief from business rates scheme, especially in the Lake district national park. The period is currently three months; that needs to be extended, and soon.
I should like the £12,000 rateable value limit on property to be lifted. Tax assessments should average profits for the tax years ending in 2000 and 2001. That would allow current losses to be reflected as early as possible in tax payments.
I do not accept the Conservative proposition that a new borrowing scheme should be set up. However, I accept the principle behind that proposal, which is that there should be subsidised interest rates. The Treasury should seriously consider setting a borrowing ceiling of £10,000. Under certain conditions that I shall describe later, subsidy should be made available to help offset interest rate costs on borrowings made through established institutions.
I should like a job retention subsidy to be introduced to help keep people in employment in the tourism industry and related sectors. Such a subsidy would apply especially to live-in staff in restaurants and hotels in the Lake district. That would make a major contribution towards helping existing businesses retain the staff who work for them, or who have done so until recent weeks. A worrying advert appeared in my local newspaper only about two weeks ago. A firm in Edinburgh was advertising in Keswick for chefs. The implications will be readily identified by the House.
I should like free—if possible—or concessionary public transport arrangements to be established throughout the Lake district national park. Dealing with the crisis calls for real measures, but not necessarily a great deal of money. I should like all car parks in the Lake district that are open at present to be free of charge. I should like there to be free access—or, failing that, access at concessionary prices—to all environmental attractions, and even to lake cruises. That would be a major help in attracting tourists back to the area.
I should like help to be made available with the insurance premiums paid by businesses in my constituency. Such help would be of great assistance to guest houses, which, as commercial premises, pay substantially higher premiums than private houses.
I should like subsidies to be introduced to cover the advertising and promotion budgets of many businesses in the Lake district national park. Such subsidies should be based on the expenditure in those businesses' last two years' accounts, which means that vast amounts of money would not be involved.
I should also like the membership subscriptions to tourist associations and the Cumbria tourist board to be paid for many of the business in difficulty in my area. We should also consider underwriting the budgets of those local associations completely, if it is felt that that would be a better way to provide support.
How can we select the people to help? We have imposed on local authorities a requirement to asses the level of hardship where it occurs. I hope that the relevant criteria will be applied to the additional arrangements that I am calling for today.
My proposals apply to the Lake district, but they would also be valid in parts of Devon and central Wales. They would not be expensive. They are highly targeted, and do not amount to compensation. Someone should put a price on the package of measures that I have set out, as my resources are too limited for such a task.
I shall be leaving the House at the next election, but another hon. Member may well make the same speech in a couple of months, because the crisis will not go away. Everyone—people in Cumbria, hon. Members, and Ministers too—is trying valiantly to overcome the difficulties, but we face a major crisis. It must be dealt with, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he winds up the debate, will accept a proposition that I made the other day. That was that the organisations in my constituency that are wrestling with the problems every day should be allowed to give evidence directly to the national taskforce. I attended a taskforce meeting two weeks ago, and I was very impressed. The taskforce, with all its multi-ministerial representation, has a vital role to play.
Finally, I want to say something about vaccination. Peter Greenhill, chairman of the Mitchell's auction company in my constituency, has given me valuable advice about herdwicks, a variety of sheep. I advise Ministers to keep in contact with him, as he has a lot to say, especially about special breeds.
I do not know what the row over vaccination is about, especially with regard to meat consumption. Most cattle are vaccinated, and there is nothing new about that. If it is suggested that there should be special labelling of vaccinated animals, does that mean that all meat should be similarly labelled if the animal that it came from has been vaccinated? If so, almost every chop and other piece of meat in this country's butchers' shops would carry a label saying that the animal had been vaccinated.
As I understand it, some 40 vaccinations are already in use, and they apply right across the board. What is the difference between the foot and mouth vaccine and any other? The argument about vaccination and the need for compensation in connection with milk is nonsense. Vaccination is already an established practice, and vaccinating for foot and mouth would not amount to any change.

Mr. David Curry: I shall begin by pretending for a moment that there has been no outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and sketching the situation in agriculture and the rural economy that obtained before the outbreak began.
It is worth remembering that agriculture was already experiencing the worst economic crisis for a generation, and 24,000 jobs had been lost in the sector. The total income from farming in 2000 was at its lowest for 25 years. According to Countryside Agency figures, per capita income declined from £10,600 in 1998 to £7,800 in 2000. Significantly, agriculture's contribution to the national economy is now below 1 per cent. That puts the cost of dealing with the crisis in context.
The value of tourism to the English countryside is estimated at £12 billion, £9 billion of which derives from day trippers. Tourism supports 380,000 jobs, and in Yorkshire alone, 135,000 people—7 per cent. of the work force—earn their livelihood from tourism. The total revenue generated from tourism is £3.34 billion, and rural tourism generates £1.7 billion. Those figures also put the matter in perspective.
Before the foot and mouth crisis began, the tourist industry was already suffering from the high pound and poor weather. In addition, the fuel crisis and flooding problems had already made this a very difficult year for the industry.
One third of all England's businesses—just under 600,000 enterprises—are in rural areas. They are often very small, offering part-time or casual employment on a seasonal basis. Such businesses are now subject to a new set of impositions that have nothing to do with foot and mouth disease. In my constituency, for example, the aggregates tax will hit the quarrying industry, and the climate change levy will also have an effect.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) set out the circumstances encountered by people in his constituency, and the situation in my area is similar. Employers who must pay additional fuel costs will not get them rebated through national insurance contributions because they do not pay such contributions in respect of a significant number of their part-time work force. In addition, local employers are having to deal with the red tape of administering tax credit, and there is a new threat that fuel prices will rise again. The cost of car use to rural households is estimated to be 25 per cent. higher than it is to urban households.
In addition, access to technological infrastructure is often difficult in rural areas. A constituent of mine in Malhamdale wanted to have an integrated services data network line installed to help him pursue his business, but he has been told that the cost would be in excess of £300,000.
In many rural areas, the quality of secondary education is extremely high—that is especially true in North Yorkshire—but the further education structure is often less good and requires real work.
There are also the particular problems of what I call the countryside's great hidden industry—the residential home and nursing home sector. Those problems arise from the inadequacy of funding for local authorities, which determine the level of fees payable to such homes. In North Yorkshire last year, 500 beds were lost. There has been an 11 per cent. increase in the national minimum wage. One can argue that such an increase is justified, but it cannot be passed on by a sector that greatly depends on fees paid by a public authority.
That sector is crucial in offering employment. It often buttresses employment in agriculture. The farmer's wife, for example, might work part-time in a care home, because care homes are the largest employers in some of the villages in my constituency. This is a crucial sector upon which the health service depends enormously to provide "seamless" treatment for people from hospital back in the community, and it is seriously under threat.
All that happened before the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. There is not a single case of foot and mouth in my constituency, but it is under siege because

until very recently, every square inch of it was a restricted area, so no normal activity could take place. I have spent a lot of time recently going to Wharfedale, Grassington and Ingleton—the villages that depend on tourism. With due respect to the Prime Minister, York is not the gateway to the countryside. My constituency, like that of the hon. Member for Workington, is much more dependent on rural pursuits such as walking and access to the countryside.
The level of cancellation is over 80 per cent., and the results of that spin down to the local pub and the local restaurant. The patterns of delivery for the Theakston and Black Sheep breweries show that there is the opposite of an accelerator right through the rural economy. This is the deceleration effect that comes from the crisis in the tourist industry.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will that not persist right through the summer? The agricultural shows will have been cancelled in my right hon. Friend's constituency, as they have been in mine. People who depend on those for revival will not have them this year.

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The royal show is being cancelled, as are all my little shows in individual dales. They are a great focus of local activity.
It is important that the Minister for the Environment realises that the summer has already been shot to pieces for many of those businesses. The clients who would have booked for their summer holidays have already booked elsewhere. Businesses may be able to hang on over the summer, but come the back end of the summer and next winter, many will be in serious difficulties. Any help may almost be more relevant six or nine months from now than it is at the moment.
As for the Government's help, the suggestions on my list are very close to those made by the hon. Member for Workington. Although my constituency was a zone excluded from the list of benefits that he hopes to see introduced, our economic circumstances must be very similar. The £12,000 ceiling on the rateable value for businesses does not make sense. Indeed, it excludes some properties such as the larger pubs, which employ more people. They are having to lay off staff, but they want to hold on to their work force.
Many businesses are paying council tax and not business rates, and that needs equivalent relief. The Government aid to local authorities in respect of business rate relief for businesses with a rateable value of more than £12,000 is 75 per cent; for values below £12,000, it is 95 per cent. As for the wonderful principle that because businesses must pay 5 per cent. when the relief is 95 per cent., that means ownership of the scheme, my businesses would happily dispense with that particular proprietorial notion.
Craven is a tiny local authority, one of the smallest in the country, with a budget of between £5 million and £6 million. Without advertising the rate relief scheme yet, it has had 388 applications, 65 of which relate to properties with a rateable value of more than £12,000. If it were to grant them all, that would cost the authority £52,500. That may seem small beer, but against a total budget of less than £6 million, it is a significant sum. The resentment caused by the levels of relief offered in Wales and Scotland is intense—and I say that as someone who,


as the hon. Member for Workington knows, is not inclined to play a particularly English nationalistic card in this matter.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend has raised an important point. I wrote to the Minister for the Environment a fortnight ago on behalf of Stroud district council, which is very similar to the authority that my right hon. Friend has mentioned. A fortnight ago, Stroud council reckoned that it would be unable to reclaim £250,000 from the non-district rating pool. This is a very serious problem, and if the Government do not remedy it, the council tax payers in those small rural areas will have yet another year or two of council tax increases way in excess of inflation.

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have the identical situation in my constituency.
The Government must realise that devolution is not just about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but about England as well. There is real concern at their apparent unwillingness to match the English interest with what is being offered elsewhere.
The eleemosynary instincts of the Inland Revenue are extremely welcome and very rare. However, for many of my businesses, going to the Inland Revenue and being charged for the privilege is not particularly relevant to their circumstances.
The Bellwin relief scheme ought to apply to local authorities, because this is an emergency. It cuts in when more than 2 per cent. of the budget has been spent. In North Yorkshire, in view of the money needed for flood relief and the effects of the Selby rail disaster, local authority expenditure is extensive. However, a local authority's normal expenditure depends largely on the number of teachers that it employs. It is curious that the Government's aid in connection with foot and mouth disease depends on the number of teachers on a local authority's books.
The climate change levy should be deferred. It is a pure imposition on small businesses in the tourist sector, because the national insurance rebate does not affect them. I agree with the hon. Member for Workington about support for payroll costs. Businesses want to keep their staff in work and keep them available. Those people often greatly need the extra income that those jobs provide. That would be the single most crucial piece of help that I could identify in my constituency, where businesses are under terrible pressure.
Providing investment grants towards the capital investment required to rebuild businesses would be a helpful contribution. If there are to be loans they will have to be interest-free or subsidised, because there is not the cash flow to service loans raised at the normal rate of interest.

Mr. Paterson: My right hon. Friend touches on cash flow, which is surely the most pressing issue facing those businesses. In the equestrian sector, a large riding school in my constituency, with 70 horses, has no cash flow at all. The arrangements for rates will be helpful down the road, but such businesses need a cash injection fast.

Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have seen well publicised stories of riding establishments having to

slaughter their horses because they cannot afford to maintain them. That is particularly telling in an epidemic in which the images of lambs in the mud, and calves, have featured so prominently.
Above all, we need the restoration of normality as fast as possible. However, we need to look beyond that, at the exit strategies from the crisis. There will have to be a recovery strategy. In agriculture, the costs of stock replacement may exceed the levels of compensation paid for stock. There will be a period before farms can be restocked, in which farmers must have a livelihood.
A great deal of nonsense has been and will be spoken about the impact of all this on the common agricultural policy. The Liberal Democrats' Ruritanian naivety—cliché-ridden naivety at that—was a singular non-contribution to this debate.
Diseases such as BSE and foot and mouth will push agriculture further in the direction in which it already knows that it must go. It must move into the environmental market, it must move into the recreational market, and it must move upstream and produce more quality food. In other words, the task of public policy makers is to define what those public goods are and how we pay for them, so that we are not dependent upon contradictory policies that promote production while also seeking to promote and support policies that militate against production.
When we come to that debate, I hope that people will show some sense and realism about the directions in which agriculture must go, and will not chase some new form of Elysian dream that will not have the faintest bearing on reality. In the meantime, very many businesses are suffering acutely. They will continue to do so for the rest of this year and beyond, and the aid must stretch to them while the crisis lasts.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who as usual spoke a great deal of sense—if he does not mind my saying so. I was also pleased that he broadened the debate a little beyond the immediate impact of foot and mouth. The debate is on the rural economy, and if we were not holding it against the backdrop of that disease it might be rather different. For example, in my part of the world—Devon and Cornwall—unemployment is at a record low, whether in urban or rural areas. There is still big migration from urban to rural areas—those people are not moving to rural areas because life there is intolerable, but it is understandable that we are holding this sad debate against the backdrop of the current crisis; I shall restrict my remarks to that.
I was pleased with what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, said about the trends of the outbreak. However, I am slightly puzzled by the approach of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who constantly lectures the Government that they need to learn the lessons of 1967. I fear that he may have to eat his words. According to the current epidemiological projections, if the present trend continues, this outbreak will have been far more successfully and quickly contained and eradicated than the 1967 outbreak, which went on for eight months with far more cases. The hon. Gentleman should be more careful when he draws parallels with 1967.
There seems to be some general confusion in the House about the meaning of the term "under control". My understanding is that the scientific definition of a disease being "under control" is when one outbreak generates fewer than one further outbreak. Under that definition, the disease has been under control for at least two weeks—even in somewhere like Devon—contrary to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk.
That is not to say that we do not have enormous problems. My right hon. Friends the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Minister for the Environment will be aware of the particular problem in Devon of carcase disposal. However, although the hon. Member for South Suffolk says that he has visited Devon, he does not seem to have learned very much. He displayed the most extraordinary ignorance of our geology and of the fact that, after the wettest year for 300 years, our water table is at a record high. In the constituencies that are most badly affected, such as that of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), there is the highest proportion of people with private water supplies. All the experts and the Environment Agency say that the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk for on-farm burial is the worst possible environmental solution to the problem. I do not know where he gets his ideas.
During this crisis, most Members have learned that often there are no simple solutions and no easy answers. I know that, in Devon, the Army and MAFF have been working around the clock to try to find appropriate disposal sites. It has been incredibly difficult. We have not had the luxury of the large disposal sites in Cumbria. Sites have now been found, but as the Government and authorities have—rightly—listened to the concerns of local people, there has been a delay in the sites coming on-stream.
I associate myself with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon that the Government should consider the possibility of taking away some of our carcases. I realise that Ministers would tell me, "You would say that, wouldn't you?", but there is now spare capacity in other parts of the country. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who, sadly, is no longer in the Chamber, seemed rather reluctant to receive any of our carcases. I point out that, during a large part of the outbreak, we in Devon were taking carcases from his area into our rendering capacity, so there could be a generous quid pro quo. I urge the Government to consider that proposal. The situation is terrible. Human health problems could arise—as they have already done in some cases—with all those undisposed carcases left in the Devon countryside.
The crisis has been devastating and distressing for the farming community. It has also been hugely devastating for other industries—especially tourism, as has already been said. I am especially sorry for the small tourism industries in the areas most immediately affected and on Dartmoor, which do not automatically receive compensation. They face going out of business during the next few weeks unless more is done.
We were fearful about the Easter holiday. However, I am glad to say that we had a far better Easter than we had originally expected—partly thanks to some of the

initiatives taken by the Government before Easter to encourage people to visit Devon and Cornwall and return to the countryside. In fact, takings in Devon were between 80 and 90 per cent. of those for the previous Easter. That is phenomenal achievement, given the terrible backdrop—[Interruption.]—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) points out, the good weather helped.
That relative success masks a huge disparity. In cities like mine, Exeter, takings were up on the previous Easter; indeed, during the Easter weekend, one of the hotels had to send away 30 couples because it was full. The coastal resorts did extremely well. I spent much of the recess walking around the coastal path, where there were crowds. However, on Dartmoor and in the rural areas immediately affected by the disease businesses had a terrible time.
I associate myself 100 per cent. with the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who, as usual, made a wholly constructive speech. It was full of practical, constructive suggestions, which I hope the Government will take on board. If they do not do so, some excellent tourism businesses on Dartmoor and in the rural areas of Devon will go to the wall. We have built up a high quality tourism industry during recent years; it brings enormous benefit not only to people from outside the region, but to people who live in cities such as Exeter, who like to go out and enjoy the countryside.
Those businesses will go to the wall unless they are offered some short-term help. More than anything, businesses want their customers back; they must get their customers back. We need a vigorous and well-funded marketing campaign for the rest of the year. Easter may have been better than we anticipated, but another bank holiday is coming soon, with another one after that. One swallow does not a summer make.
We need a vigorous marketing campaign—we also need access. I spent some time during the Easter recess trying to walk in Devon. I say "trying" because far too many footpaths and public rights of way are still unnecessarily closed—as is too much of our woodland. I implore the Government to step up pressure on local authorities, the National Trust and the Forestry Commission—or Forestry Enterprise, as it has been renamed—to open much more land to public access. That must happen in time for the May day bank holiday weekend in 10 days time. The limited reopening of footpaths just before Easter was crucial. If that had not happened in Devon, we would have experienced a far worse Easter and everyone would have gone to Cornwall or Dorset instead. I am sure people in those counties would have been pleased, but we would not have been.
I implore my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to keep up the pressure on the Department of Trade and Industry for at least one extra bank holiday—preferably in the autumn. I know that it is not on the Government's agenda—as he repeats each time I ask him—but will he tell the DTI that we in Britain have fewer bank holidays than people in any country in the European Union except the Netherlands? Furthermore, our workers take less holiday—by an average of about a week. It is a complete myth to suggest that giving people more holidays makes them less productive; the opposite is the case. All the research shows that productivity is associated far more with investment in technology and training than with holidays. A work force who are not


well rested and who are stressed perform far worse. As well as a much-needed fillip to our tourism industry, an extra bank holiday would go down extremely well with the public at large. That should be in our manifesto, as the Fabian Society suggests.
The medium and long-term situation also needs to be addressed. At present, I think it is too soon to put a price tag on how much the crisis will affect us. Two conflicting reports have been produced by universities in Devon. The first was issued by the university of Exeter early in the outbreak—when we all thought that it would be far worse than it probably will be—and suggested that it would cost the county 10,000 jobs. Since then, research has been carried out by the university of Plymouth, which is much less pessimistic. However, I urge the Government to make a close study of what they think the impact will be, and to listen to the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington.
I am sure that on both sides of the House we all hope that the medium and long-term impact of the disease will not be as bad as we feared at the beginning. It is very good that the disease has been brought under control and eradicated more quickly than many of us—even the most optimistic expected two or three weeks ago, but we are certainly not yet out of the woods.
May I make a plea for a couple of things? The first may not be popular in the countryside, but we need to hold such debates openly during times of crisis such as this: we need planning in rural areas. It is extraordinary that 75 per cent. of our land is in agricultural use, but accounts for only 1 per cent. of our gross domestic product—as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon pointed out. Yet there is a housing shortage. It is not a popular thing to say, but we need more homes. Ministers may be aware of the storyline on the BBC Radio 4 programme, "The Archers", in which there is a big debate about a new housing development in Ambridge. I am with Roy and Hayley on this one. They are a young couple who are about to get married and desperately need a home, but the NIMBYs in Ambridge are trying to stop them getting one.
Our rural economy would be helped if we could have more homes. Farmers would also be helped if they were allowed to build two or three homes on their land. They would not then need taxpayers to compensate them for some of the losses that they have incurred. I hope that Ministers will take that on board. I know that it is a controversial suggestion, but we should debate such things; we should not be shut up by organisations such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
We need to restructure the Departments. That is not a slight on the work done by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, nor on that done by the Ministry. She is absolutely right—her staff have been working absolutely tirelessly in incredibly difficult conditions. They have worked miracles and, with hindsight, they will be judged much more fairly and favourably than they are currently being judged in the media.
It seems to be nonsense that a Department is dedicated to an industry that is responsible for just 1 per cent. of our gross domestic product, whereas tourism, which is far more important economically, is the responsibility of a small part of another Department, with no budget and very little clout. I hope that the Government will grasp that

nettle after the next election. I am not sure what the answer is, nor whether I agree with the Liberal Democrat party's recommendations, but we need to consider that matter extremely seriously.
Finally, on the reform of the CAP, all power to my right hon. Friend's elbow. I agree with her that the change of Minister in Germany is hugely important. I know Renate Künast from my time as the BBC correspondent in Berlin. She is a very sensible woman, and I am sure that the Minister can do business with her. If we can get the Germans on board for a radical reform of the CAP, despite all the clouds and the gloom of this crisis, there could be a very bright silver lining.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Never before has the importance of tourism to the rural economy of the United Kingdom been more apparent; never before has the industry been so much in the forefront of the news; and never before has the future, the core and the infrastructure of tourism been so thoroughly under threat.
Britain's tourism industry, as we have heard, is the fifth biggest industry and comprises 120,000 businesses, more than 80 per cent. of which employ fewer than 10 people. The tourism industry makes £64 billion a year, of which rural tourism provides £12 billion. In rural England, tourism supports 380,000 jobs. A quarter of all holidays taken by British people in England alone are in the countryside, and those rural areas contain 39 per cent. of the known accommodation capacity in England, provided by 25,000 establishments.
Because of the crisis, British tourists have withdrawn into their own home territory, or they are booking holidays abroad, encouraged by other European countries, which have ploughed into our markets, advertising walking and rambling holidays. There is no need to withdraw from our own holiday pattern—beaches, rural areas, country bordering rural areas and, indeed, most holiday spots inland are accessible.
Much in evidence have been scenes in newspapers and on TV, both here and abroad, showing Britain on fire and the Army moving in, none of which has helped to stem any fears that tourists might have. In the USA, "Come to Britain" holidays have taken a nose dive. A wrong strategy was taken by the Government, who simply failed to realise that tourism would be hit far more than farming in the long term.
The lack of information supplied to tourism businesses in the first weeks of the crisis was absolutely appalling. The information is still inadequate and red tape surrounds many aspects of business. Why not ease the pressure by requesting the regulatory impact unit to carry out a snapshot study, with the Government acting quickly on the findings?
The British Tourist Authority now estimates that, in 2001, inbound tourism will be between 10 to 20 per cent. short of its original forecast. That will involve a likely drop in revenue of between £1.5 billion and £2.5 billion. In Cumbria, the trade is facing 350 redundancies, with many more in the pipeline, and 193 tourism businesses and attractions have reported losses to the Cumbria tourist board. Not only hotels and shops, but food suppliers, petrol stations and restaurants are beginning to see no light at the end of the tunnel.
The Youth Hostels Association, with which I am closely associated, faces losses of almost £6 million after being forced to close almost half its hostels. In Cumbria, 17 out of 24 youth hostels have shut down, yet I visited the area just after Easter and found the lakes and many countryside beauty spots thronging with visitors, acting very responsibly and enjoying themselves, too. I met hoteliers to discuss the future of tourism. They, and those in other businesses throughout Britain, have suffered a collapse in bookings and a drastic drop in cash income. That is exemplified by statistics that show that the inquiry rate from 19 February to date is about a third of that in the same period last year.
The statistics certainly show a drastic drop in bookings for September, October and into early next year. That was also highlighted on my visits to Torbay, Bath, Welshpool, Eastbourne, Weston-super-Mare and my own constituency—Southport. Tourist boards in all those areas are fighting back with positive moves, but they need more Government help. In Devon, the county council estimated that 1,200 jobs would be lost in agriculture and ancillary rural industries, while 8,700 jobs could be lost from its tourism sector and allied businesses. The reduction in income in the tourism sector was estimated at £196 million.
Nationally, the Liberal Democrats called immediately for a grip to be taken when we saw how easily businesses could head towards bankruptcy. We asked for a moratorium on VAT, or for it to be reduced, which would not only help the tourism industry, but bring us more in line with other European countries, especially Ireland, where an immediate upsurge in tourism occurred when VAT was lowered. We asked for a moratorium on business rates and suggested that repayment of arrears could take place over a long period.
We contacted the banks and an immediate response came, stating that full consideration would be given to those whose cashflow was in difficulty. The possibility of help with the payments for specific essential services, such as gas, water and electricity, was taken up and an agreement was sought for the banks to provide loans or grants, with lower interest rates than the Government's loan guarantee scheme.
Liberal Democrats have also urged that the recently published Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill should be implemented soon, instead of waiting until April 2002. An alarming aspect of the 50 per cent. mandatory relief is that it will not initially apply to pubs and garages. That needs to be amended urgently to protect those in rural areas who could go out of business very soon.
The British Tourist Authority has put a lot on its website, detailing a visitors' charter on which 1,100 attractions have already been entered. The BTA targets overseas visitors coming to the United Kingdom and has received a commitment from the Government for £2.2 million in additional funding towards its planned recovery activity. However, the BTA has made it clear to the Government that that is only the first part of further substantial investment. The second instalment of money, totalling £8 million, is already required to undertake tactical advertising and further PR activity. That £8 million is needed now, so why do the Government not release it?
The English Tourism Council has also prepared a recovery plan for tourism in the United Kingdom. It has been submitted to the Government in support of a bid for £35.5 million—the sum estimated to be needed to carry out the recommendations contained in the plan. Delivery will take place nationally and regionally. Together with the regional tourist hoards, the ETC has received £3.8 million to implement the short-term measures identified in the plan, of which it has passed on £1.4 million to regional tourist boards—but where is the Government's total commitment to the sum of £35.5 million?
In Devon, the county council has sought to compensate for the loss of visitors from within the United Kingdom by diversifying into the overseas visitors markets, the objective of which is to increase the number of visitors, and visitor spends, from the overseas markets to the rural sub-region. That will sustain employment opportunities and raise the quality of Devon and Cornwall's tourism sector. We applaud that, but much more needs to be done. Better communication is needed between the Government and the regional tourist boards so that contact is easily maintained and the situation is monitored directly. An additional bank holiday would assist small businesses to recuperate some of their financial losses, and that would be best timed in the autumn towards the end of September.
The impact of foot and mouth on rural tourism businesses, as defined by the North West tourist board, will affect the ability of regional boards to raise money for marketing this year. The industry will not have the funds to partake in marketing activities. Attractions also will not have the resources to take part in the national quality assessment scheme and accommodation will withdraw from the accommodation inspection scheme. The long-term effects of that will be a reduction in the quality offered and a downward spiral in our competitiveness. Subsidies already announced must extend throughout all those sectors. Tourist boards need to develop the case for compensation for tourism businesses, highlighting the scale and extent of foot and mouth's disastrous impact on visitor expenditure, local economies and special circumstances.
I particularly take on board the suggestions made by the Cumbrian representative, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). All such remedies will help rural tourism, which must and will survive.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: This has been an important debate. It has given the House a chance, after the Easter break, to discuss the biggest issue to have hit the countryside in possibly a generation. It has highlighted the real crisis in the countryside and Members—such as the hon. Members for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), as well as the Minister of State, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo)—have understandably focused on that. I suspect that it will be my hon. Friend's last speech in the House as he is retiring when the election is called. As ever, he fought hard for the tourism industry.
It is not simply foot and mouth that is at the heart of the economic problems facing the countryside. The problems have been built on top of a crisis that is of longer making.


Between autumn 1996 and autumn 2000, agricultural employment fell by 85,000. It fell by almost 20 per cent. even before foot and mouth hit home. In 2000, farm incomes fell to as low as £7,800 per capita—the lowest figure for 25 years, as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture rightly pointed out.
The crisis is not merely confined to farming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southport pointed out, it has hit hard at tourism. The whole rural economy has been affected, as I and all hon. Members, whatever their party, will know from their constituents who face serious difficulties as a result of the impact of the disease. For example, there has been a huge impact on the St. Austell brewery because of the loss of trade in its pubs in Devon. Teagles, the agricultural machinery manufacturers, has had to lay off workers near Blackwater in my constituency. The problems have spread throughout the rural economy, so I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Exeter who said that, without foot and mouth, the debate would have been about how well the rural economy is doing. People in rural areas would not recognise that picture.

Ms Candy Atherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: I shall make a bit of progress and then give way to the hon. Lady.
Rural post office closures have continued at the rate of 200 a year since the 1997 general election; rural pubs and shops are in decline; 70 per cent. of parishes are now without a general store; and 43 per cent. have no post office. Outside the commuter belt, rural Britain is characterised by lower incomes, more part-time work rather than bread-winning full-time jobs, a huge gap in areas such as my own between house prices and incomes and lower access to public provision for transport, hospital services or whatever. The hon. Lady may recognise that picture.

Ms Atherton: We all accept that foot and mouth has caused particular problems, but would he be kind enough to tell the House what has happened to unemployment in his constituency since 1997?

Mr. Taylor: Unemployment has fallen, as it has in the rest of the country. However, as the hon. Lady knows, unemployment remains higher in our part of the country than in many others. Incomes remain 20 per cent. lower than the rest of the country and the gap in funding between our area and others has widened.
I do not want to suggest to the House that the problems started in 1997. The worst feature of this debate has been the amnesia of Conservative Members. They suggested that only a Labour Government have faced problems in rural communities. The truth is that the recession in farming started six years ago on the back of the BSE crisis that was so appallingly mishandled by the Conservatives when they were in office. Their bare-faced cheek in criticising this Government for their handling of foot and mouth is extraordinary.
Conservatives started the rundown of rural services, cutting schools, hospitals and bus services. They started not hundreds but thousands of post office closures. Worst of all, they established, although Labour has failed to

reform it, the funding of public services formulae that mean that remoter rural areas—precisely those that have been hit hard by the foot and mouth crisis—receive lower levels of Government funding for education, health and local government than the national average let alone that received by the more privileged commuter areas that Conservative Members represent. In education Cornwall receives £100 less per pupil, and £100 per person less for the NHS than the average. Formulae introduced by the Conservatives have yet to be reformed by the Government.
Although it may be true that many Labour Members often show too little understanding of rural areas—Conservative Members make that allegation and they are not always wrong—the fact is that Conservative Members, who claim now to defend the countryside, first let it down because they took it for granted. As a result, it is no wonder that more Liberal Democrats represent the poorest rural constituencies than Members in any other political party.
Foot and mouth should now be the moment for change. The good news from the debate is that people in all parties have argued that case; the question is whether we shall see action. First, there must be a change in the Government's approach to helping businesses hit by foot and mouth. During the crisis in the countryside, I have not engaged in petty politics as to whether the Government did something a day or two late or a day or two early. The truth is that any Government faced by this crisis would have struggled, so we have sought to make constructive suggestions on how they could do better. It is always easy, when looking in from the outside, to find such suggestions, but the measure of a Government is whether they respond to them. In many cases they have but, in too many others, they have yet to do so.
I understand that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a statement tomorrow and it is a shame that we did not hear it before this debate. The House should have the chance to debate—and not simply question—that statement. We provided the opportunity for that to happen and, if the Government choose to make the statement after the debate, they should find their own time to allow for debate and for proper questioning of whatever measures they introduce. I hope that their policies will go along the lines of those that we have suggested.
The message that we read one day from the Prime Minister in the Western Morning News and that we hear in the statements that other Ministers make to the House is that more is yet to come, but that message is wearing rather thin. That is why the Western Morning News launched its "SOS SouthWest" campaign. People are frustrated to be told that help is on its way when they do not see it in place. They need to know whether they will have a job or a business in the future.
Like the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Workington outlined a perfectly reasonable set of proposals. However, the Government have not yet shown that they have taken full measure of the economic crisis, although they have demonstrated that they appreciate the scope of the foot and mouth epidemic. I hope that the number of cases will continue to drop off so that we know that the epidemic is coming under control. The devastating knock-on economic impact on farms that continue to suffer consequential losses is not under


control. We called for those businesses to be supported when the crisis started in February, but there is still nothing from the Government.
The Government do not understand the scale of the crisis that is affecting businesses, especially those that are not in the earmarked, designated rural areas. It hits as much in south Somerset, south Gloucestershire and Torbay as it does in the most rural parts of Cornwall and Devon. The impact is especially notable on tourism. That is why we argue for 100 per cent. rate relief for all affected businesses. Uniquely, we have drawn up plans for detailed interest-free loans of £20,000 to be provided over two years, similar to the model recommended by the hon. Member for Workington. There is no need for the Government to find the capital sums, as the Conservatives suggest. They must, however, help with interest payments, for which they could use existing models, such as career development loans. There is no reason why they should not do that for the businesses affected by foot and mouth.
The crisis is severe and the need for long-term reform is the issue on which hon. Members have been brought closest together. Even BSE did not achieve that. For the first time, there is general agreement that we need a model of farming that supports people in their jobs and family businesses and protects the countryside. We do not want a system that simply pays out for production, money which ends up in the pockets of supermarket chains, which make billion pound profits, and in those of the big agricultural businesses, but never in the pockets of those who most need it—the small farmers in the most difficult rural areas.
The Conservatives ask how we would achieve common agricultural policy reform, but how would they? Their policy is not to leave the European Union, although one Conservative hon. Member who complained about our approach seemed to suggest that it was. I agree that while it is necessary to have unanimity in the Council of Ministers, we are unlikely to achieve the far-reaching reforms that we need—there is always a vested interest that blocks them. We need to change the processes in Europe to undo those difficulties so that a single country with a single vested interest cannot block reforms that are in our best interests and those of many other European countries, on which we can find a great deal of common resolve.
It is not possible to maintain for ever the unfair funding formulae that discriminate against rural areas. Although they are not the Government's fault and they say that they want to reform them, Labour is four years into its term in office. There is no excuse for the fact that the Government's formulae assume that children, patients and businesses are worth less in far-flung rural areas. I hope that the Minister will respond to that problem, because long-term reform is needed.

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on their choice of debate and the discussion has been useful. Although the Government should be held to account for what might be the most difficult crisis of the past 20 or 30 years—perhaps the worst within the lifetime of most hon. Members—the hon. Member for Truro and

St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) was right to remind the House that it has occurred against the background of BSE. He also reminded us about the rundown of services in rural areas, which is not a recent event, but one which has been going on for a long time. Indeed, services deteriorated markedly under the previous Government.
The hon. Gentleman and others said that there has been no Government debate on the subject. I do not know how many statements my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made, but I have delivered two and they allow for extensive and detailed questioning. Having been on the receiving end, I can confirm that that is a more effective way to hold Ministers to account than a more general debate.
I pay tribute to what the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) said. I assure him that VAT deferrals are not subject to an interest charge—that is a canard. The same applies to income tax that is deferred because of foot and mouth. It does, however, have to be demonstrable that that outbreak was the cause of the problem.
I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments on reform of the CAP, which was also mentioned by other hon. Members. The appointment of Renate Künast will undoubtedly change the centre of gravity in the Agriculture Council.
Tighter inspection at ports and identification of the country of origin of food products is largely covered by EU rules.
Hon. Members talked about returning to normality, but what do we mean by that? What is sustainable agriculture? Those issues will be discussed when the foot and mouth crisis is over and the Government intend to take a lead in those debates. Discussions have already begun on the regeneration package for the rural economy that we intend to introduce. Indeed, it was discussed by the rural taskforce this morning and will certainly be discussed again. However, we have deliberately held off because it is right to emphasise the importance of the eradication of the disease. We cannot get sidetracked.
Circumstances today are different from what they were before Easter, but we are not complacent and accept that we are not totally in control of the disease. That will not be the case until there are zero new cases. Considerable progress has been made, however, with 13 new cases in the past three days, 13 the day before and nine the day before that, which compares with the reported 40, 50 or even more cases that were occurring only three or four weeks ago. Although the takings in the rural economy over Easter were not as great as last year, they were at a much higher level than many people had feared. There have been losses, some of which are grievous, but this Easter most rural businesses took between 70 to 80 per cent. of their takings last year.
We have repeatedly said that the best way to assist rural businesses in trouble is to get the customers and visitors back. I hope that I carry every hon. Member with me in that sentiment. We have been trying extremely hard to achieve that goal. All or most rights of way are open in a fifth of local highway authorities. Even Cumbria, one of the hardest hit areas which has experienced great difficulties, opened 100 footpaths before Easter. Surrey and Norfolk have opened half or more of their paths. Some 1,000 miles of towpaths along the canals have been opened; East Sussex has opened Ashdown forest; the royal parks have reopened;


and the National Trust has opened many of its most popular properties. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), today announced that the Government are providing an additional £4 million to local authorities to assist in opening footpaths and to provide fences, publicity and temporary staff where needed.
Disposal was mentioned throughout the debate. On-site farm burial was of particular concern. The Government's priority is clear. We are absolutely in favour, first, of rendering; secondly, of incineration at industrial plants where that is available and, thirdly, of burial on registered landfill sites. The problem with Devon is that none of those options is immediately available because full capacity has been achieved in each case in the county and adjacent areas. The only other alternatives are pyres or burning in open fields.
Burial on site is not possible for the reason given in the debate, namely the extremely high water table. We are considering moving carcases to landfill sites within a reasonable range, although we have to take account of the environmental impact of doing so. If there are 175,000 carcases—recent statistics indicate that the figure is probably lower, as most people believe, but it is still substantial—we cannot leave them lying in fields leaching disease into the ground, so we have to find a method of immediate disposal. If we cannot safely take carcases to alternative landfill sites, the only way to dispose of them is to burn them. I believe that we will complete that process fairly quickly, as we have done in Cumbria. The Government are doing everything possible to remove that backlog.

Mr. Breed: Has any consideration been given to burial at sea?

Mr. Meacher: As far as I know, we have not considered burial at sea, but I doubt that it would be environmentally acceptable.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) misunderstood on several counts. It is true that the series of figures on the website was discontinued for a short time in the first half of April. It was reintroduced on Good Friday and has continued ever since. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the reduction in the number of animals awaiting disposal represented a catching-up exercise by the regional centres in recording the numbers that had been disposed of. That has allowed more accurate figures to be published. I am sure that he has a suspicious mind and is assuming, although he did not say so, that we are fiddling the figures. Perhaps that was such a common occurrence under the previous Government that he assumes that we are doing the same, but we are not.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned contiguous farms. In a slaughter-on-suspicion case, all susceptible livestock on the premises are slaughtered, but we do not cull on contiguous premises until we get the lab results. If the results are negative, a form B is served and restrictions are lifted, but of course no livestock are left on the farm. If the results are positive, we convert the slaughter-on-suspicion status to a confirmed close and then cull on the contiguous premises.

Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Meacher: I am running into extra time and I do not want to get to a penalty shoot-out, but since the hon. Gentleman is a Liberal Democrat, I will give way.

Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister help the House and my constituents by stating how many carcases remain to be disposed of in Devon and how many the Ministry stated were awaiting disposal yesterday?

Mr. Meacher: I cannot provide those figures now, but we will provide more accurate and up-to-date figures. The latest figures available indicate that the number is substantially below 175,000. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will deal with that point tomorrow.

Mr. Bradshaw: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Meacher: I am sorry, but I really cannot because I still have a few remarks to make and we are running into the time for the next debate.
The lifting of restrictions in surveillance zones is covered by EU rules, and the procedures that we are following to lift infected area status reflect veterinary advice based on draft EU directives on foot and mouth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) gave a constructive, fair and reasonable speech such as we have come to expect from him. He spoke of the financial assistance that he wants the Government to provide. I shall not detain the House now by giving the details of our £220 million package, but I will say more about two or three of the specific measures that he mentioned. We are prepared favourably to consider the averaging of profits to reduce tax, provided that it is understood that it may well turn out to be less helpful than many people expect. The same goes for the job retention proposal. We would need to seek agreement from the Department of Social Security that rather than paying benefits to people who are made redundant, the money should be used to keep people in work if possible. We are considering whether that is possible and consistent with the general social security framework.
I want to pay a compliment to the Cumbria taskforce. When I visited the county, I was very impressed by its work and by the practicality and range of its proposals. I hope that there will be further such proposals. I am always very glad to see my hon. Friend at those meetings.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) referred to the £12,000 rateable value threshold, but if I cannot have his attention. I will not go on. [Interruption.] I do not have time now, but later I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what I was going to say.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) asked about taking the carcases in Devon elsewhere. We are considering that because it is a better alternative than pyres if we can find a method of doing so that is environmentally acceptable. We are giving short-term help to businesses to get back customers. We are stepping up the pressure on local authorities to open their footpaths and facilities. I made that point again to the Local Government Association at the rural taskforce meeting this morning.
Unhappily, the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) made his valedictory speech to the House on tourism. The Government have just extended mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief to pubs, garages and village shops. On Monday, we will have the Second Reading of a Bill to extend it further. On extra tourist grants, I can say that the Government have already made available £6 million to the English Tourism Council for the tourist boards. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have given £2 million to the British Tourist Authority, and we are taking its advice about what more is needed. Last week, we had a very successful visit from travel operators from the United States and other key markets. That cost about £100,000, and the BTA said this morning that it thinks that its benefits already run into tens of millions of pounds.
The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell painted a picture of decline, but I must point out that many villages and small settlements depend on rural post offices. The hon. Gentleman neglected to say that the Government have made available £270 million to prevent all avoidable rural post office closures. That is an important commitment. I agree with him that the foot and mouth disaster is an opportunity for change, and that is why we will be introducing a new package not only to kick-start the rural economy but to tackle the whole question of the future of agriculture.
I apologise for the length of my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government will take on board all the points that have been made. I have no doubt that there will be further discussions about the issue. We are determined not only to eradicate the disease in this country as soon as possible but to regenerate and revivify the rural economy in a manner that we have not seen for many decades.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 305.

Division No. 195]
[7.9 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy



Baker, Norman
Kirkwood, Archy


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Livsey, Richard


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
McCrea, Dr William


Brake, Tom
Michie Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Brand, Dr Peter
Moore, Michael


Breed, Colin
Oaten, Mark


Burnett, John
Öpik, Lembit


Burstow, Paul
Rendel, David


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Chidgey, David
Salmond, Alex


Cotter, Brian
Sanders, Adrian


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Stunell, Andrew


Fearn, Ronnie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Gidley, Sandra
Tyler, Paul


Harris, Dr Evan
Webb, Steve


Harvey, Nick
Willis Phil


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)



Hughes, Simon (Southward N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Bob Russell and


Keetch, Paul
Sir Robert Smith.





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ainger, Nick
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Allen, Graham
Darvill, Keith


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davidson, Ian


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Dawson, Hilton


Ashton, Joe
Denham, Rt Hon John


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dobbin, Jim


Atkins, Charlotte
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Austin, John
Donohoe, Brian H


Bailey, Adrian
Doran, Frank


Banks, Tony
Dowd, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Drown, Ms Julia


Barron, Kevin
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Battle, John
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Beard, Nigel
Edwards, Huw


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Efford, Clive


Begg, Miss Anne
Ennis, Jeff


Beggs, Roy
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Flynn, Paul


Benton, Joe
Follett, Barbara


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Berry, Roger
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Best, Harold
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Betts, Clive
Gerrard, Neil


Blears, Ms Hazel
Gibson, Dr Ian


Blizzard, Bob
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Godman, Dr Norman A


Borrow, David
Godsiff, Roger


Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)
Goggins, Paul


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bradshaw, Ben
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Browne, Desmond
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burden, Richard
Grogan, John


Burgon, Colin
Gunnell, John


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Hain, Peter


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Hanson, David


Casale, Roger
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Caton, Martin
Healey, John


Cawsey, Ian
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Chaytor, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Church, Ms Judith
Hendrick, Mark


Clapham, Michael
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Heppell, John


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hesford, Stephen



Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hope, Phil


Clelland, David
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Clwyd, Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coaker, Vernon
Howells, Dr Kim


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coleman, Iain
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Colman, Tony
Humble, Mrs Joan


Connarty, Michael
Hutton, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corbett, Robin
Illsley, Eric


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Corston, Jean
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cousins, Jim
Jamieson, David


Crausby, David
Jenkins, Brian


Cummings, John
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)






Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Mudie, George


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Joyce, Eric
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
O'Hara, Eddie


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Olner, Bill


Kemp, Fraser
O'Neill, Martin


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Khabra, Piara S
Pearson, Ian


Kidney, David
Pickthall, Colin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pike, Peter L


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Plaskitt, James


Kingham, Ms Tess
Pond, Chris


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pope, Greg


Lammy, David
Pound, Stephen


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Laxton, Bob
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lepper, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Leslie, Christopher
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Levitt, Tom
Quinn, Lawrie


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rammell, Bill


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rapson, Syd


Linton, Martin
Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lock, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


McAvoy, Thomas
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


McCabe, Steve



McDonagh, Siobhain
Robinson Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McDonnell, John
Rogers, Allan


McFall, John
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Rowlands, Ted


Mackinlay, Andrew
Roy, Frank


MacShane, Denis
Ruane, Chris


Mactaggart, Fiona
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McWalter, Tony
Ryan, Ms Joan


McWiiliam, John
Salter, Martin


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Savidge, Malcolm


Mallaber, Judy
Sawford, Phil


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Sedgemore, Brian


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Shaw, Jonathan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martlew, Eric
Shipley, Ms Debra


Maxton, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Miller, Andrew



Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)



Soley, Clive





Southworth, Ms Helen
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Tynan, Bill


Steinberg, Gerry
Ward, Ms Claire


Stevenson, George
Wareing, Robert N


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Watts, David


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
White, Brian


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wicks, Malcolm


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)




Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Winnick, David


Temple—Morris, Peter
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wood, Mike


Thompson, William
Woolas, Phil


Timms, Stephen
Worthington, Tony


Tipping, Paddy
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Todd, Mark
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Trickett, Jon



Truswell, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Mr. Don Touhig and


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Mr. Mike Hall.

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that the current foot and mouth crisis has impacted upon a wide range of rural businesses and services, affecting many aspects of rural life; further notes that foot and mouth has hit a countryside that has suffered from lack of investment under previous governments; agrees that the first priority must be the isolation, control and eradication of foot and mouth disease; endorses the Government's commitment to rural communities as set out in the Rural White Paper and the England Rural Development Programme; welcomes the extra financial help the Government has made available to farmers and rural businesses affected by foot and mouth, including agrimonetary compensation for livestock farmers and the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme; welcomes the work of the Rural Task Force including its work to open up the countryside and business relief, deferral of tax and national insurance contributions, extension of the small firms loan guarantee scheme and new grants to Regional Development Agencies and tourism authorities; and calls on the Government to continue putting in place the long-term policies needed to regenerate British agriculture and revitalise the rural economy as a whole.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I now have to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day.
On the motion on Road Traffic, the Ayes were 176 and the Noes were 282, so the motion was disagreed to.
[The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Foreign and Security Policy

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should announce that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Paddy Ashdown: I beg to move,
That this House believes that in environmental, foreign affairs and security policies only a collective and multilateral approach will now succeed; regrets the unilateral decision of the United States to refuse to adopt the Kyoto Protocol and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to use every effort to persuade the United States government to reverse that decision; asserts the universality of human rights and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise that respect for human rights should be at the centre of a foreign policy with an ethical dimension; and reaffirms its support for a reformed, fully-funded United Nations equipped to respond swiftly to oppression and the systematic abuse of human rights.
To be frank, I move the motion with a little sadness. That is not, of course, because there is any deficiency in the motion, which was drafted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), and is therefore perfect in every detail. It is because I suspect that this is the last time that I shall have the privilege of moving a motion on behalf of my party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I agree with that, but it was not said before today.
Nearly 100 years ago, Lord Curzon was speaking on foreign affairs. He was Viceroy of India then, and said:
Frontiers are the razor's edge on which hang suspended the issue of war or peace and the life of nations.
He was speaking, what was, for his time, no more than the truth. He was speaking at the end of a century that took the rather new idea of the nation state and raised it to sophistication and at the beginning of a century when it became the engine of two of the most destructive wars in human history. The nation state that he was talking about was the arbiter of all things. There was nothing in international affairs except nation states. If a country was not a nation state, it was nothing. Nation states and their sovereign institutions were sovereign and not subject to interference from anywhere else. Their governments proposed and disposed; their parliaments were sovereign and did not have to acknowledge anybody else. Such parliaments were the means by which we governed ourselves, by which we ensured our common wealth and by which we established our identity. Nation states meeting in solemn conclave with other nation states drew up treaties, established borders and disposed the order of the world.
So it was, but so it no longer is. Things have changed fundamentally in our world in ways that I believe that we in the House and people in other nation state parliaments are reluctant to acknowledge. Nevertheless, such changes are facts of our lives. It was no more than 80 years after Lord Curzon uttered those words when, in 1992 or 1993, the United Nations calculated that there were about 87 conflicts throughout the world, of which only two were between nation states and about borders. All the rest were within the borders of nation states or across them, and concerned conflicts among tribes, ethnicities, religions and communities. Lest it be thought that I am talking about some far-flung corner of the world more primitive than our own, let us remember that one of those 87 conflicts was in Northern Ireland.
Things have changed fundamentally. The position of the nation state as the single monopoly that proposes and disposes all and whose institutions are all-governing and entirely sovereign is no more. That monopolistic position has been eroded by two of what I think, internationally, are the greatest events of our age. They are the migration of power from the nation state up to global institutions and into the hands of the global players, and the atomisation of its power down to the communities that make it up and into the hands of individual citizens.
I shall give the House a small illustration. In September 1998, I was in the little villages of Suva Reka, near Pristina, when they were being bombarded, shelled, looted and burned by the main battle units of the Yugoslav army. I will not bore the House with the details, which are probably reasonably well known. However, two little things caught my eye. It was a sort of paradigm that illuminated a much larger event. Every Albanian village had a graveyard—there were too many of them—with freshly dug graves, and every Albanian house, be it extremely poor, had a satellite dish.
I noticed amidst the mayhem and misery that while all the graveyards pointed, according to Muslim tradition, towards Mecca, all the satellite dishes pointed towards Murdoch. I fell to wondering which of those two facts would more greatly influence the lives of the people round whom the war was raging. The answer was that Murdoch would affect their lives more than Mecca. I was seeing the globalisation of influence. Power was being handed up to the global players, to whose operations frontiers and borders are irrelevant. They are unconstrained by any of the institutions that we have created and beyond any code of practice. They operate at least amorally if not immorally. I do not say that they operate immorally but they operate outside any moral code. If that is the case, in due course some of them will, if they have not already, operate amorally.
Power is in the hands of satellite broadcasters, transnational corporations, commodity traders and currency speculators who can influence economies and destabilise regimes even as powerful as our own, as remember with pain from black Wednesday. International problems accompany the globalisation of international power. That includes good things and bad things. We cannot tackle drugs or international crime unless we are prepared to do it internationally. Power has migrated from the institutions of nation states into the hands of global players. Problems have migrated there, too. More and more in the world today, it is not the power of this nation or that but the interrelationship between them that matters. It is our interdependence that is the most important factor. The institutions that we create to manage global events will determine whether we live in peace and prosperity. We must work together, across borders, because we can no longer resolve inside borders the problems from which our citizens suffer. In short, we must learn to pool our sovereignty.
That is something that we in the House, especially those on the Conservative Benches, fail to understand. The Conservatives believe that pooled sovereignty is somehow diminished sovereignty. That is astonishing. Have not the Conservatives been telling us for 50 years how important NATO is? That was the first revelation of the need to pool our sovereignty. What more fundamental sovereignty does a nation have than the sovereignty to defend itself? Straight after the last war, we realised that


unless we pooled our sovereignty in defence, we could not assure the defence of our own country and the security of its citizens.
I fancy that that is happening elsewhere, too. We cannot create a secure economy unless we are prepared to operate in a global marketplace on a larger scale than we currently do. We cannot secure a safe environment—pollution is no respecter of borders—unless we learn to work with our neighbours. I expect that that will be true of the pound, as well.
There is an argument according to which we will lose our sovereignty if we enter the euro. The opposite is the case. If the British pound, relatively small, is positioned mentally somewhere in mid-Atlantic between the most powerful currency in the world, the dollar, and the second most powerful currency in the world, the euro, we will have all the sovereignty of a cork bobbing along in the wake of two ocean liners.
We will have to work with others, even on defence. We have discovered—a revelation of the 1980s and 1990s—that even collective security is not sufficient. We must have common security. In the era of weapons of mass destruction, our destiny rests with not going to war, for winning a war by using mass destruction would destroy ourselves. The great statement of John Donne:
No man is an Island … any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind
has been elevated from a poet's vision to an imperative of international affairs. It is the only means by which we can survive.
One such means is the creation not just of global institutions, but of regional institutions—supranational institutions at a regional level. It was not the intention of the founding fathers of the European Union, but by chance we have created in Europe what is effectively the world's first operating international test-bed for supranational institutions. It is not insignificant that the rest of the world is following our lead, nor that the rest of the world is regionalising, too. We have seen it in the summit of the Americas recently in Quebec, we have seen it in the North American Free Trade Area and inevitably we will see it in the Pacific region.
Europe is our region, and we must be part of that. Why? Not because one must believe in some transcendental vision of European unity, or because one is impressed by the great mechanisms that we have created to govern Europe, but for the simple and practical reason that it is only by working with our colleagues in the European Union that we can deliver for our citizens in this country the things that we want them to have: security, a safe and clean environment, a context in which to operate our industry, and a framework for a stable currency, which is a pressing need. That is not to excuse in any way the failures of democracy or the excessive bureaucratisation of the European Union. Of course it is a flawed institution. This place is a flawed institution, God knows. That is not a reason for abolishing it, but for reforming it. That is what we must do.
Let me be clear. We are living in a rather febrile period before a general election, so I am aware that my words might be taken out of context. Heavens above, that such a thing should happen! I am absolutely not saying that the nation state will disappear. It will remain the most important context for our identity and for our governance. I am merely saying that we must consider a re-assembly—a redistribution—of power.
Some of the power that we used to hold uniquely to ourselves must be distributed upwards to global institutions, because that delivers what we want for our citizens, and some must be distributed downwards to devolved institutions. The latter point is as true for Britain as it is for Macedonia. The devolution of power to local communities will be the most important matter.
I come to the second point—not globalisation, but atomisation. We have seen power passed down to individual citizens in our society, who trade in the global marketplace, oblivious of borders, who use the internet, and who are capable, sometimes frighteningly, of suddenly coagulating together in ways that are not recommended by Governments and frighten them to death. We saw that in the fuel protests. We saw it, probably, at Diana's funeral. We saw it in the Danish referendum.
One of the things that we have discovered, and of which we should be aware, as it has a profound implication for foreign affairs, is that the old idea of a singular identity springing out of the unitary nation state has gone. The last time that we heard it expressed was in Norman Tebbit' s cricket test. [Interruption.] The foreign land speech is another example, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) says.
People are discovering other identities for themselves, apart from that of the nation state. They are finding common cause with their community, their religious group, their ethnic group. When that happens, the motivations that are unleashed are not always good. Incidentally, that applies not just to other nations or to Albanians living in Macedonia. It applies to me, too.
Almost two decades ago, when I first entered the House, if I had been asked who I was, I would probably have said that I was British, and that would have been sufficient. If I am asked today who I am, I have to give a rather different answer. I am Irish by extraction, and proud of that fact. I am west country by love and choice. That is where my constituency is. I am British, of course, but I am also European. Unless I can express my identity in that more complex way, I cannot describe the space in which I want to live and, above all, in which I want my children to live.
Here is the point. If we force upon people the unitary identities of their nation states, the result is blood, almost always. If we force the Catholic to say in Belfast that he cannot have an attachment to the island of Ireland and be Catholic and British at the same time, we will have blood on our streets, and we have. If we force the Muslim in Sarajevo to choose between his Yugoslavian and his Muslim identity, there will be shells in his city and in Srebrenica in his neighbouring communities.
The world is no longer as Curzon saw it. In the 18th century, the apogee of the nation state, there were only two conditions: nation statehood or nothingness. The world today is much more complex. I sat down in the margins of a Balkan conference recently with our ex-ambassador in Belgrade and for fun, doodling, we came up with the new institutions that we had to deal with. Of course, there were states, but there were also what we called non-internationally recognised state-like entities, or NIRSLES. There are lots of them about. Kosovo is state-like, but it is not internationally recognised, and we have to deal with it. The Palestinians and the Albanian community in the Balkans are further examples.
Then there are partially internationally recognised state-like entities, or PIRSLES. Taiwan is partially internationally recognised and clearly a state. There are also internationally recognised non-state-like entities. Bosnia is internationally recognised and we declare it a state. but it is manifestly not: it is two states. I make the point not just for levity, but to show the complexity of the matters with which we must deal. Using the language of the 18th century and speaking of states or non-states, as we still do, and not altering our way of thinking means that we cannot resolve some of the problems that confront us.
I apologise to the House, but at this stage I am extremely pessimistic. The theory is that at the end of the cold war, having avoided global destruction, we live in safer and more secure times. I do not believe that to be the case. I think that we live in times of almost terrifying dissolution and change. The old institutions are breaking down. The old structures no longer apply. I fear that for the next two or three decades, the world will be very unstable, full of conflict and very frightening.
The words that echo in my head are those in A. E. Housman's great prophetic poem, written before the first world war, in which he said:
On the idle hill of summer,
Lazy with the flow of streams,
Far I hear the steady drummer
Drumming like a sound in dreams.
Far and near and low and louder
On the roads of earth go by,
Dear to friends and food for powder,
Soldiers marching, all to die.
I am very worried about an era that may be characterised by the death of creeds—what great creeds are there today? I fear that it may be characterised also by the dissolution, incapacity and disconnection of institutions that do not seem to work any longer.
So, what do we have to do? Fundamentally, we have to change our way of thinking. We must break ourselves out of the language and conventional thinking of the old nation state. We must start thinking in more different ways. That is not new. Many times in our history, power has broken out of the institutions that we created to ensure accountability. It happened in Magna Carta, in Cromwell's time and when the Reform Act of 1832 took effect. We, too, are in a period in which we must create new institutions capable of dealing with power in the places to which it has migrated. That means one thing: accepting the globalisation of power and creating the instruments for global Governments of one sort or another.
I ask hon. Members to note that I do not refer to a global government, or to some parliament of the United Nations, although it has a part to play. We need to create all sorts of multilateral and international institutions to begin to cope with the problems that confront us. For example, it is unreasonable that we should ask the World Trade Organisation, which was created and formed to deal with trade, to deal also with environmental problems. We need to create a parallel institution that is capable of thinking about how it preserves the world's environment.
My next conclusion is that the power of individual, unilateral action by states will diminish, however powerful they are. Increasingly, what matters will be the effectiveness and powers of the multilateral institutions that we create, which should be capable of dealing with the world's problems.
I think also that regional organisations will increasingly develop. Incidentally, I think that one of the effects will be the counteraction of the move towards free trade. As regional organisations grow, there will be a strong tendency towards the re-erection of tariff barriers. That must be resisted. The point is, however, that in terms of supranational regional organisations, ours is Europe. It is essential that we play our part in that.
If someone asked me what Europe must do in the next two decades to keep secure, I would answer that it had two primary foreign policy aims. The first is to maintain the Atlantic relationship through a period of great change and enormous tension, and the second is to assure the survival and ascendancy of democracy and the free-market system in the Russian Federation. We in Europe can do neither of those things unless we get our act together and work in a more co-ordinated fashion.
I believe that the Atlantic relationship will come under very severe pressure as the areas of interest, in terms of the euro on the one hand and of the dollar on the other, inevitably come into competition. As we get our act together, the handling of that relationship will require great skill and subtlety. I believe that the reform of NATO is crucial, as is the creation of what we were talking about as long ago as Kennedy and Kissinger—a twin-pillar NATO in which Europe and the United States work as equal partners. For instance, that is why it is our essential that we get our act together in a European common defence force.
Of course, all that is difficult and we will not necessarily have a smooth path, but it is, to my mind, more certain that the Atlantic relationship will be threatened if we in Europe do not begin to bear the burden of our own defence and cope with our own problems in our backyard. If we continue to call in the United States every time we have a problem and ask it to risk its treasure and the blood of its young citizens to solve Europe's problems on its borders in places such as the Balkans, we may be sure that the Atlantic relationship will sunder, and it will deserve to do so.
I believe that there will be an opportunity at some future time for us to think even more widely. One of the most significant problems in our world today is the instability that is created by currency speculation. We cannot recreate the Bretton Woods agreement, but is it impossible for us to consider establishing at a future stage some relationship between the euro and the dollar? Such a relationship could not only copper-fasten the political relationship that remains the axis of assuring effective preservation of western values in the world; it could also provide some stability against speculation, thus creating twin currencies that might act as the most effective trading currencies in the world and dampen the instabilities that are created by currency speculation. However, that is probably something for a long time in the future.
I have two other points, the first of which is about Europe itself. I think that we cannot go on living in a never-never land and having a free ride; we pretend that we can be an economic giant, as we are with respect to


the euro, but remain a political pygmy that is incapable of getting its act together. That is an impossible position. The euro gives us an area of influence, things to protect and views to proselytise and propose. We will have to invest. Europe's current problem is that it has created a very tight economic institution—the euro—that is set within a very weak political institution. We will have to strengthen the political institutions of Europe. For instance, we will have to protect power around our borders to be able to secure them.
We will also have to adopt what we have failed to adopt in the Balkans so far: a co-ordinated regional European approach. We cannot go on dealing with Balkan nations piecemeal. When we dealt with Croatia, we thought that we had solved the problem, but in so doing, we blew up Bosnia. We solved Bosnia in Dayton, but forgot Kosovo. When we finished in Kosovo, we forgot to set it within a regional framework in the southern Balkans, and—lo and behold—Macedonia is now at the edge of war. We in Europe must have a co-ordinated Balkans policy that applies to the region and recognises that it is not the individual nations that matter in the Balkans, but the interconnection between them.
My last point is that I think that we will discover in the very near future that the security of nations—even medium-sized ones such as ours—cannot be secured except within a framework of international law that is clear and understandable, and which is policed and enforced. Let us not get too worried about our pace in assembling that framework. Frankly, we have not done terribly well, but no body of law springs from a single pen or technical textbook. Law is created by practice and precedent. We have slowly and untidily invented new rules for international intervention. We saw them in Kurdistan and Kosovo. We have invented new ways of going about things.
I can tell the House that when I returned from my trip of September 1998, which I mentioned earlier, I went to see the Prime Minister. I said that I thought that we must use air power immediately, and that if we did not do so, Milosevic would seek to clear out Kosovo completely. Of course, that was the terrifying Operation Horseshoe that we saw later. The Prime Minister said that in the absence of a Security Council resolution, which we would not get, we had not yet assembled a case under articles 1 and 5 of the UN charter to proceed legally with such a proposal. I think that he was right. We had to wait until the humanitarian situation got worse, which it did in due course, before we intervened. However, the
fact that we did it legally under articles 1 and 5 makes it easier to do in future. We have created a precedent for international law. Part of that has to be an international court that is capable of dealing with war crimes tribunals. It is essential that we establish such an institution.
The day after I had been shelled by the Serb units, I went up to the Dulje heights and spoke to some of the Serb artillery commanders. At that stage, they were more frightened of an indictment from The Hague than of bombs from NATO aircraft. If we had used such means then, it might have been the only way in which we could have constrained their actions. That same day, when I went to see President Milosevic, I gave him a bag of the cherries that I had collected from his citizens who were living in the forest and who had lived on nothing else for six weeks. However, I also took him a copy of the Geneva convention with marks against the paragraphs in respect

of which I believed that his forces—and him, as he had now been informed of it—had specifically contravened international law, for which he would subsequently be indictable, as indeed he was. That is an essential component of the international institutions that we must create not only to ensure justice after crimes have been committed but to act as a means of restraining the worst activities of those who, in due course, would probably fear the international court in The Hague more than the use of arms.
All has changed except our way of thinking and the language that we use to try to resolve our problems. At a time of huge instability, great tension and strong dissolution, the only way in which to create a secure, peaceful and prosperous world for the future is to establish multilateral instruments that are capable of achieving it.
Curzon's days are gone, and I prefer to use a text by Gladstone. I suppose that I can say that he was my great predecessor as party leader, although that is slightly self-aggrandising. During the second Midlothian campaign, when he was seeking to be Prime Minister, at a time when British forces were invading Afghanistan, he spoke the following remarkable words:
Do not forget that the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan, amongst the winter snows, is no less inviolate in the eye of Almighty God than can be your own. Do not forget that he who made you brothers in the same flesh and blood, bound you by the laws of universal love and that love is not limited to the shores of this island, but passes across the whole surface of the earth, encompassing the greatest along with the meanest in its unmeasured scope."—
a statement of moral principle for his time, and, I suspect, a code of survival for ours.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
believes that the United Kingdom's national interests are best served by addressing the challenges of the modem world in constructive partnership with other countries and international organisations; further believes that human rights and protection of the environment are important global issues which are central to Her Majesty's Government's foreign policy; and welcomes the Government's full support for the work of the United Nations and initiatives to improve UN peacekeeping and the effectiveness of the Security Council.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) made a fine, extremely thoughtful speech. However, it is worth placing on record as a comment on the state of modern British politics the fact that not one Tory Back Bencher was present before the welcome arrival one minute ago of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). At 7 pm, that is no accident. If the boycott was meant as an insult, the right hon. Member for Yeovil is entitled to take it as a compliment. If it was intended to demonstrate the modern Tory party's discipline, it showed only its puerility.
Excellent co-operation on foreign policy has been established between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, and it can be established on many other subjects. I refer in particular to the close working relationship, which the right hon. Gentleman was involved in establishing, and which has continued between my right


hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). The work of the Cabinet joint consultative committee on the United Nations and on Europe attests to the success of the relationship.
There will always be differences between parties; that is the point of political debate, but there can be agreement and co-operation and values can be held in common, especially on the great international issues to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. If, to some extent, we have broken a mould of sniping and one-upmanship, we have contributed to a new path built on consensus. That is good for politics in this country and for Britain's place in Europe and the world. When we speak with one voice on international issues, our message is heard louder and clearer. The key to that success has been readiness to listen and to pool ideas and expertise. I commend that approach, at least to the saner spirits in the Tory party.
I am pleased to acknowledge the contribution to that process of the right hon. Member for Yeovil. His knowledge of the Balkans, which was reflected in his speech, and his commitment to the cause of peace and democracy have been and will continue to be a national asset. He was one of the first in this country to speak out on the horrors of ethnic cleansing and to argue for a more robust United Kingdom policy.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Kosovo. Today, he was in Montenegro. I know he would wish to join me in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Yeovil, who has visited both places so many times and to such good effect in the last troubled decade.
We have now got the consensus out of the way. I stress that speaking with one voice on international issues does not mean that we can neglect differences when they occur. However slight they may be, they lead to disagreements that are expressed through the normal procedures of the House. In any debate it is therefore important to be clear about the terms that we use and to capture the full complexity of the issues. We do not agree that
only a collective and multilateral approach will now succeed",
as the Liberal Democrat motion states. Sometimes, a country may need to argue its case in the face of collective opposition. The important point on such occasions is that the issues are approached in the spirit of constructive partnership with other countries and international organisations. That is the true hallmark of the Government's approach to the important global issues of our time.
Before I consider some of the subjects that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, I want to update hon. Members about developments in Zimbabwe. We have received reports tonight from our high commission in Harare of serious disturbances that are aimed at foreign business interests. Several European-owned firms have been invaded by so-called war veterans who claim that they are acting on behalf of the ruling ZANU-PF party. Money has been extorted from the businesses, and staff have been detained and beaten by the veterans. The police have not intervened, and that is a worrying development in circumstances that we all find deeply disturbing.
Our high commissioner in Harare expressed his strong concern to the Zimbabwe authorities this afternoon and is liaising closely with the local British community. I stress

that we have received no reports of serious injuries to UK nationals. We shall continue to monitor events closely and we will advise UK nationals to contact the high commission if they need further guidance. I shall consider the further action that we should take tomorrow morning as circumstances become clearer. I believed that it was my responsibility to advise the House of those developments as early as possible.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for the information that he has provided. A direct consequence of the events that he described may be that people who live in Zimbabwe feel compelled to try to come to the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will adopt a generous attitude towards anyone who seeks asylum from Zimbabwe.

Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments will be noted in many quarters. I do not want to raise the temperature or inflame difficult circumstances. The advice that I gave British nationals to contact the high commission if they require further information and guidance is appropriate at this stage.
Let me revert to the Balkans, one of the major themes of the speech of the right hon. Member for Yeovil. He knows, as we do, the scale of the challenges that face the people of south-east Europe. He also knows how much has been achieved by them and by the international community in reconstructing their society since NATO intervention, which was justified by the need to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, stopped ethnic cleansing in its tracks two years ago.
Milosevic thought that he could get away with wiping the Kosovar Albanians off the map; he was wrong. The Government and many who supported our actions determined from the outset that we would not tolerate further ethnic cleansing. Britain stood firm against the Kosovo death squads, and the west stood firm with us. We halted the tide of hatred and helped turn it back so that public anger eventually consumed Milosevic himself.
Under United Nations protection, and with our help, the people of Kosovo have repaired much of the physical damage. Repairing the damage to society will take imagination and painstaking efforts to break out of the destructive cycle of ethnic violence. However, the prospects are much brighter than they were four years ago for Kosovo and for the whole region. The key now is for Kosovo's Albanians and Serbs to disown extremism and revenge and to start to re-engage with each other to build a better society. The elections there later this year will be an important step along that path.
Today, all five states that emerged from the former Yugoslavia have elected democratic, moderate leaders. There is a realistic prospect of the region becoming, with much hard work, a normal part of Europe. That would not have been possible if we had allowed Slobodan Milosevic to claim a place in history as the victor of Kosovo. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made plain in Belgrade earlier this month, today we extend the hand of friendship and assistance to Yugoslavia, and that must be a two-way partnership. The people of Yugoslavia must, in turn, help the international community. We shall have unfinished business until Milosevic has stood trial in The Hague. We welcome the fact that there is now talk of


charging him in Belgrade with his crimes against the Serb people. They will quickly come to realise that Milosevic was not a great Serb nationalist but a great enemy of the Serb people.
However, a trial in Belgrade cannot replace the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's obligation to hand Milosevic over to The Hague tribunal, and I hope that the Serb people will come to see, as increasing numbers of them are doing, that it is in their own interests for that to happen, so that he can also face trial for crimes against the other peoples of the region. It was right to stop Milosevic in his tracks, and if we had not done so he would probably still be in power. There are lessons to be learned from that reality that should not easily be forgotten if similar situations should arise in future.
One of the lessons of the Balkans war, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, is that the world needs a permanent mechanism for securing justice against dictators and war criminals. Britain has put that lesson into effect by becoming a leading advocate of the International Criminal Court. The tragic paradox of the last century was that those who murdered one person were more likely to be brought to justice than those who plotted the genocide of millions. We all have a responsibility to make sure that the world does not provide an opening for another Milosevic.
That is why the Government have brought the International Criminal Court Bill before this Parliament. I hope that the overwhelming support for the court among the nations of the world, and the bipartisan support in the House for the principle, will be matched by support for the Bill in the House. There is no point in supporting it in principle and obstructing it in practice. Swift passage of the Bill would allow Britain to be among the first 60 countries to ratify the treaty and thereby bring the court into existence. The Bill will be one of the most enduring legacies of this parliamentary term. It will be by no means the only one.
My aim is to make our commitment to upholding global values irreversible. I know that that aspiration is shared by both our parties. Never again should it be possible for a British Government to argue that human rights are none of their business. Crimes against humanity are the business of all humanity. We should not listen to the argument that upholding human rights is sometimes in conflict with our interests. There should be consensus that it is never in British interests to turn a blind eye to human rights abuse. I have just come back from Bahrain, where I had a robust discussion on human rights issues. Governments who are democratically accountable will be more reliable partners for peace, and Governments who respect freedom of expression will be more honest as trading partners. Countries that accept the rule of law at home are more likely to accept their international obligations against organised crime and weapons of mass destruction.
Nowadays, every nation state is as interdependent as it is independent. The fact of globalisation is beginning to dominate our domestic politics as much as it does our international relationships. Old definitions and dividing lines are being reassessed. A more revealing measure of political outlook is how people react to the new global reality of interdependence. The progressive political forces will be those that are cosmopolitan, outward-looking and comfortable building international partnerships, and that respect people of different ethnic

identities. They will offer solutions that recognise that national security requires international alliances, and that domestic prosperity requires the dynamic pursuit of external economic co-operation.
Those progressive forces will consist of those people who welcome foreign contact as enriching, not threatening. I strongly endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about multiple identity, the need for all of us to embrace it and, even more important, for all our children to embrace it comfortably. No one should try to pin people down to being one thing or another: all of us in the Chamber, in our society and throughout the world are many things and should be proud to be so.
The reactionary political forces will be those who are isolationist and inward-looking, and who feel more comfortable clinging to the comfort blanket of a false idyllic past. They want to build barriers between Britain and the rest of the world at a time when Britain needs bridges, not barriers. They offer isolation when Britain needs to play a leading role in the world.
Few issues are higher up the international agenda today than climate change. I can assure the House that the Government remain committed to tackling climate change through constructive engagement with the international community. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister strongly supported the Kyoto protocol in New York last week. We have also raised the issue directly with the United States: my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised it with Secretary of State Powell, and we shall continue to raise it with our US counterparts. Through engagement and detailed discussion with all parties, including, of course, the US Government, we shall make progress on this key issue. Working with the international community, rather than against it, is the way forward. That clearly demonstrates that protection of the environment is at the centre of the Government's policies.
Britain must also be fully engaged in the work of the United Nations. No task is more important or urgent than maximising the effectiveness of United Nations peacekeeping. The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties spoke with one voice on this subject in the recommendations that the United Kingdom put forward at last autumn's millennium summit in New York. There have been more peacekeeping operations in the past decade than in the previous four. Increasingly, conflict within, not between, states is changing the environment in which our peacekeepers operate. Ambassador Brahimi's report has shown us the way to address this new environment. I particularly echo his call for more robust rules of engagement. Carrying out mandates impartially must not imply remaining neutral between good and evil, and UN peacekeepers who witness violence against civilians should be mandated to halt it.
If our peacekeepers are to act with determination, we must equip them with the capacity to do so. UN missions need a headquarters unit capable of rapid deployment within a few weeks, not months, of a Security Council resolution. Each of us must develop a number of troops who are trained in the principles and practice of peacekeeping, and be prepared to deploy them rapidly and effectively. That is why Britain has proposed that there should be a staff college for UN peacekeeping. We have offered to act as the host country for such a resource, if that would be welcome to other members.
Reform of the United Nations must begin with reform of the Security Council itself. We need a more modern and representative Security Council: a body that represents the world of the 21st century, not that of the middle of the 20th. However, it is not only in the composition of the Security Council that we must seek reform. The Security Council must be more willing to engage across the full conflict prevention agenda. It must engage with all the relevant players at all stages. We need to mainstream conflict prevention in the work of the UN Security Council and the whole UN system.
Our permanent membership of the Security Council reflects our historic weight in world affairs, but it also confers grave responsibilities. We must use our position to tip the balance against tyranny and oppression. That is why, for instance, we shall continue to work in the United Nations towards a solution to the problem of conflict diamonds. There is an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall tomorrow on that important issue. Following a UK initiative, we are now on the verge of a world certification scheme, which will ensure that rough diamonds cannot be traded from countries in conflict unless they are validated by the legitimate Government.
Equally important is our work on small arms and light weapons. The self-loading rifle is today's real weapon of mass destruction. The Government have been, and will remain, in the forefront of international efforts to curb the spread of such arms to non-state actors and rebel groups. We have put forward the suggestion of an international arms surrender fund to support the collection and destruction of surplus arms in return for development aid. We will not opt out of our international responsibilities, nor will we surrender our national interests within the United Nations or within the European Union.
Our vision of Europe is one that we share with many Liberal Democrats. The Government have transformed British relations with the European Union. One has only to look back a few years to the chaos and the damage that was done to this country by the attitudes and the prejudices of the previous Government. We intend to stay engaged: we want a successful European Union because it is the only way to deliver the prosperity, quality of life and personal security that our people demand.
The Tories say that the Nice treaty, with its provisions for EU enlargement, is bad news. It might be bad news for the Conservative party, but it is not bad news for the people of Britain, who will see a stronger Britain in a wider Europe. It is not bad news for the people of the rest of the European Union, who will share the benefits of the reunification of Europe, or for the people of the applicant countries, who know that accession to the EU is now in sight. By standing up for Britain at Nice, the Government stood up for stability and prosperity across our whole continent.
We fully recognise that the EU raises vital issues that affect us all. That is why the Government have been at the heart of the debate on the future of Europe, but we need a healthy and mature debate. We need to get beyond sterile arguments that look for ways to turn the clock back. It is time to stop fighting the battles of yesteryear, and time for Britain to play a full part in shaping the future of Europe. This Government are equipped to lead Britain into a confident future in Europe and in the world.

Mr. Richard Spring: I welcome the opportunity to debate the issues raised in the motion, and to examine differences in approaches to the way in which the world is currently developing. We have a new Administration in Washington, continuing tragic violence in the middle east, tensions in the Balkans, and a China that is becoming more assertive; so there is much on which to reflect. First, however, let me use this opportunity to acknowledge, freely and warmly, the way in which the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) has sought over many years to highlight important foreign policy issues in the House as a distinguished parliamentarian and party leader. I also take the opportunity, personally, to wish him well in the future.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman explain his party's motive for boycotting the right hon. Gentleman's valedictory speech?

Mr. Spring: There was certainly no boycott. I think it rather churlish of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to make such an unfortunate and inappropriate remark.
The complexities of globalisation demand multilateral approaches today, but nations and networks, not greater integrated Government structures, make that possible. A new world of nations and networks is replacing the old world of blocs and hierarchies. That is one reason why the Conservative party formed a commission on the Commonwealth to examine ways in which that often overlooked and undervalued organisation could be of real benefit to its members in the future.
In this new world, the bedrock of stability, security and prosperity is the self-governing nation state, which enables societies to understand their roots and character in a way that integrated supranational constructs and multilateral organisations simply never can. Constantly resorting to higher and higher levels of supranational government, as the Liberal Democrats' ideas incessantly do, reflects a fundamental lack of confidence in Britain as an important player in the world, and—that elusive democratic deficit again—a fundamental reluctance to ensure that accountable forms of government, our best option in times of rapid change, remain to the fore. Those views, regrettably, are powerfully echoed by the Government.
Given our range of assets across the world and our influence through our language and culture. Britain has a role to play, not as a pale shadow of the United States, or simply as a component of European foreign policy, but as a strong and independent force for good in the world. A unique British role is particularly possible in the context of the Kyoto protocol, but, given the Deputy Prime Minister's apparent keenness to express anti-American sentiments, it is a role that this Government cannot fulfil. No wonder the right hon. Gentleman found himself sidelined during his recent trip to Washington. We too will be sidelined, as a country, if we adopt the right hon. Gentleman's course. Sabre-rattling by the Government will certainly not style the problem. We will achieve a solution by agreement, not confrontation.
Of course the United States' decision was regrettable. Conservative Members support action to tackle climate change and implement the Kyoto protocol. That is why


the next Conservative Government will act as a bridge between the United States and Europe in climate change negotiations, rather than simply encouraging animosity towards the United States.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Foreign Secretary, returned from Washington only this morning. He had meetings with the Vice-President, the national security adviser and the deputy Secretaries for Defence and at the State Department. A view was confirmed that many are happy to promote—a view of the United States becoming simply isolationist. That view is utterly misplaced. In reality, in the new Administration we have an ally whose outlook extends throughout the world, and it is in our interest that that position remain. We must do nothing to jeopardise it.
With our allies across the Atlantic and across the channel, we have the basis for collective action in foreign policy, in maintaining our security and in tackling environmental concerns that know no geographical bounds. A multilateral organisation like NATO is the bedrock of our security. However, as the right hon. Member for Yeovil will know, NATO's decisions are not made on the basis of majority voting
For 50 years the Atlantic partnership has been one of the most powerful forces for good in the world, but today I believe that it is at risk. Why do both the Government and the Liberal Democrats favour a European Union defence structure which in practice will be separate from NATO. and will risk weakening the Atlantic alliance? Is it not the case that a tried and tested multilateral arrangement is being bypassed by a developing European Union foreign and defence policy—a move that is supported not only by the proponents of the motion, but by the Government?
What the Americans really want, acid are not materially getting, is greater burden-sharing. Multilateral co-operation must be flexible to succeed; by contrast, co-operation based on doing everything together at the same speed is a recipe for failure. Truly multilateral organisations such as NATO have achieved that successfully. Attempts to create an EU foreign policy response through political integration, absorbing the views of individual members, produces policies that no one will follow, and which are easy prey to other states that are willing to play off one EU member against the other.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I do not agree with the proposition that he has just described—but can he explain why that proposition is so unacceptable, given that it was signed up to by the Conservative Government whom he supported at the time of the Maastricht treaty?

Mr. Spring: Let me put the right hon. and learned Gentleman straight. We are totally in favour, and have always been in favour, of pan-European defence co-operation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that to be absolutely true, and it was agreed in the talks at Petersberg. What is being proposed today is entirely different; the right hon. and learned Gentleman, of all people, knows that.
We have seen the inertia that I have described again this year—the playing off of EU countries against each other. Britain again failed to register the deep concern that exists among many people in this country about human

rights in China. That is not to say that either the EU—or, more broadly, the UN—does not have a significant role to play in establishing international co-operation leading to firm action, but it should do that by doing less, and doing it substantially better. The aim of those organisations should be to muster international consensus, but not at the expense of national democracies' ability to act independently. Both, however, need substantial reform if they are to achieve that.
Beyond the EU, the UN is and will remain the focal point of attempts to co-ordinate international action to deal with global issues—but the majority of today's disputes are internal. The UN has become more actively engaged in peacekeeping roles in the last decade than it was during the entire cold war.
We are clear that it is now more important than ever that the UN be realistic about what it can achieve. It needs to focus its efforts on fulfilling the responsibilities it already has, rather than constantly taking on new tasks. The UN Security Council will remain the central pillar for international co-operation to secure peace and security.
The composition of the Security Council is the source of some controversy today, but the criteria for membership remain clear. It should comprise those countries that are most willing and able to contribute to international security, and membership should not be seen as being related to the size of a country's economy, land mass or simple position on the earth's surface, in an age when distance matters less and less. We Conservatives believe that the UK and France, for example, should continue to be members in their own right. We, the next Conservative Government, will consider proposals for new members to join the Security Council, but we will not support the idea that the EU should have its own seat.
We will work to reform the UN. The aim will be to ensure that it has a clearly defined role that it is able to perform effectively, and that its work is co-ordinated with organisations in the regions concerned.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I do not need to patronise the hon. Gentleman with a resumé of the history of the Baltic states, but not much in what he has said so far gives me much assurance that under his plan, were the Baltic states to be threatened by an aggressive Russia, they would be protected in the way that they believe they would be by a common European defence strategy. What assurance can he give to countries such as the Baltic states, which have a potential danger next door, that the Conservatives have a strategy anywhere near as effective as we believe the European defence strategy could be?

Mr. Spring: The Baltic states will of course be strengthened by their membership of the EU, and I hope that that will happen sooner rather than later. Their defence and security will be embraced by the European family of nations and, under the umbrella of NATO, everything is possible. Need I point out to the hon. Gentleman that if we disengage from NATO and possibly cause the Americans to withdraw substantially from Europe—which is the threat—the Baltic states' situation could be considerably worse?
I turn to the issue of human rights. Many areas of the world, such as China, Burma and Iraq, suffer oppression, and our position remains clear. James Mawdsley,


the courageous and defiant human rights activist imprisoned in Burma, recently joined the Conservative party because of the clarity of our stance on such issues. On Iraq, we have been clear about the damage that Saddam Hussein continues to do to his country's people by refusing to adhere to the UN resolutions. In the meantime, the Government have rowed back and forth from their initial promise of an ethical foreign policy.
Labour's ethics have been bizarre to witness—a mixture of inconsistency, leading to an aggressive approach to Sierra Leone but a shockingly inadequate response to Zimbabwe, and condemnation of Yugoslavia but barely a murmur about Russian atrocities in Chechnya. We read this morning that, with the election approaching, the Foreign Secretary has been spinning his intention to continue with his so-called ethical foreign policy. I remain unconvinced that he will be around to pursue it.

Mr. Bill Rammell: If the Government have got their ethical foreign policy so wrong, why did Lord Justice Scott, who did so much to unearth the scandal of arms to Iraq, recently say that he was "amazed" by the difference in the transparency of the position under this Government compared with the previous Government?

Mr. Spring: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will deal in a moment with some of the problems that the ethical foreign policy has caused.
Where are the ethics in the lack of firm action on Zimbabwe? I might add that I share the shock and horror at the Minister's announcement about what is happening in Harare this evening. It is truly tragic for that country.
Was not it the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), a former Minister of State at the Foreign Office, who described the phrase "ethical dimension" as
a hook on which we found ourselves"?
It appears that the Government talk about ethics at election time and in practice try to distance themselves from the word the rest of the time.
The Government's behaviour contrasts markedly with the succession of Governments who did not posture about ethics but succeeded in helping to spread freedom, law and democracy across the globe, including twice in the previous century fighting for all of Europe against tyranny and, most recently, helping to liberate millions of our fellow Europeans from the iron hand of communism. It is a proud record.
As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has made clear, we believe that Britain can be at the centre of the new network world. We will use that position to serve British interests; we will do so honourably, and we will use Britain's strength in the world for peace and stability.

Mr. Wilson: I seem to detect some weasel words from the hon. Gentleman. Was he by any chance attributing victory in two world wars and the events at the end of the cold war on a party basis? He seemed to making a contrast in terms of party. Will he clarify that?

Mr. Spring: I should be happy to. I am sorry that the Minister is so sensitive, as I said nothing of the kind.

I cannot understand why he should rise out of the waters like some sort of fish. I do not know his track record in the 1980s with a regard to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament or anything else, but perhaps he is sensitive about that. My only point was that Britain played an enormously important role, of which every person in the country can be hugely proud. We helped to liberate Europe not only from Nazism, but from the subsequent horrors of communism. That is something of which we can be extremely proud.
Nowhere could the failure of the ethical dimension be clearer than in Zimbabwe. Months ago, the Prime Minister described the Government as being "insufficiently assertive" about what was happening there, but the dithering continued Even Lord Goldsmith, the Prime Minister's special representative, has joined in the criticism of what is happening in Zimbabwe. I repeat that this evening's news makes the matter even worse.
Finally, it was agreed that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group might send a group of observers to assess the scale of the problem in Zimbabwe, but what has happened to them? When will the group travel to Zimbabwe? The way in which Britain has allowed months of violence to escalate is shameful.
The Foreign Secretary has always reverted to a standard practice in the past: tackling Mugabe head on, he says, will only worsen the problem. When will the Government stop dithering about the dreadful disregard for human rights in Zimbabwe? The escalation in violence has had a destabilising effect on the whole of southern Africa. Zimbabwe is exactly the place where a multilateral policy that involves the Commonwealth—but especially Britain and South Africa—could work if there were a positive attempt to achieve that.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I have been reflecting on what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) said about Milosevic. He said that Serbians were more concerned about the Hague than about being shelled. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the time has arrived when Governments should start indicting Mugabe for some of the heinous crimes that he has committed? The Minister may have given the regrettable impression that the Government are more concerned about British nationals suffering damage in Zimbabwe, even though Zimbabwean citizens have been deprived of their civil rights and terrorised when they tried to carry on democratic politics. Is it not time for action to be taken?

Mr. Spring: I have great sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. The situation in Zimbabwe is horrific. I genuinely believe that the Government, who have an important role to play in Zimbabwe, have conducted themselves in a pusillanimous manner that has merely aggravated the situation. I am absolutely clear about that.
As I have said before, there may well be advantage at times in co-operating comprehensively on foreign policy issues with our friends and allies. However, the hollowness of the common European Union foreign policy was recently made evident when two of our European partners received Mugabe—a huge personal boost to him. There was no justification for the French Government's action in that regard, and I remain appalled at the pusillanimous reaction of the Foreign Secretary to the way in which the red carpet was rolled out in Paris.
I have visited the middle east on a number of occasions in the past few months. Britain's absence from the task of moving forward the peace process was repeatedly commented on to me by people from all sides. Specific mention was made of the Prime Minister's special envoy. However well intentioned it was, and whatever initial benefits it may have brought, the special envoy's role has turned into an embarrassment for our superb representatives in the region and for our country's credibility.

Mr. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he has made a pretty shabby attack on someone who is serving this country well? As a Minister who travels widely in that region, I have never heard those sentiments expressed by our representatives, who work closely with the Prime Minister's special envoy when he is in the region. If the hon. Gentleman can do no better than attack someone who is working at the invitation of the Prime Minister in a role that is vital to our diplomatic efforts, it is, again, a pretty poor show on the part of the Tory party.

Mr. Spring: The Minister is carving out for himself a character of defensiveness. Whatever the special envoy's personal characteristics—and I made no negative observations in that respect—he has no accountability and no role in the negotiating process. If he would care to spend a little time talking to our diplomats in the region and understanding more of what is going on, he should do so, and then he would understand the situation better. I had better not say any more.
We support greater multilateralism of the kind represented by the United Nations, NATO, the Commonwealth and the intergovernmental processes of the European Union. However, that is not the same as the loss of an independent voice in foreign affairs. We have much to give the world and we must not believe that somehow our influence will be enhanced if we lose that independent voice. That is defeatist, counter-productive and unworthy of a country which, through its unique historical ties and current reach in the modern world, has so much to offer.

Mr. Donald Anderson: It is a privilege to take part in this debate initiated by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) who, in his valedictory dispatch, raised our sights in many key areas. I repeat my assertion that it is sad, given the respect throughout the House for the right hon. Gentleman, that Conservative Members have chosen not to attend this debate. If the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) does not believe me, I invite him to turn around and see the empty Benches behind him. That is an insult to the right hon. Gentleman and an insult to the House and our consensual traditions.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil made an excellent speech. I found nothing in it to criticise save, perhaps, that in his description of the trend in globalisation, he may have exaggerated the extent of that trend. Overall, I thought that it was a magnificent speech of which he and the House can be proud.
I was a little puzzled when the hon. Member for West Suffolk said that the United Kingdom's role was not to be a pale shadow of the United States. I contrasted that

with the immediate response of the Leader of the Opposition when the United States talked of siting at Fylingdales the national missile defence station and the indication that whatever the Americans asked for, the Conservatives would give—a sort of blank cheque.

Mr. Spring: If the Americans ask for additional facilities at Fylingdales, would the right hon. Gentleman oppose them?

Mr. Anderson: I know that there is a debate in the United States about the nature of the missile system that they want. Some missile systems—a boost phase system, for example—would not need to rely on Fylingdales. It is absurd to give a response in advance of any defined request.
I found equally puzzling the hon. Gentleman's remarks that the United States wants greater burden sharing by its European allies. That is precisely the effect of the European security and defence policy, which has triggered greater defence expenditure by a number of our allies.
I shall briefly examine the Government's record from two angles: first, the burdensome question of how others see us; and secondly, my assessment of the Government's record—a stocktaking exercise after four years. How are we seen abroad? I have been fortunate enough to travel abroad both as Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and as leader of our delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I have had many opportunities to discuss with colleagues in other Parliaments their perception of the British Government's record.
I can say, without hesitation, that, at present, the British Government are seen positively. There has been a sea change in our attitude to Europe, which has been warmly welcomed. It is seen that we now play a constructive role and that we are no longer at the margins of foreign policy.
Praise has come, too, from wider afield. For example, Mr. Dhanapala, the Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs at the UN, commented on the UK Government's role in disarmament and non-proliferation:
Britain's leadership … has been impressive indeed.
He commended the UK for leading by example.
Obviously, I do not have time to reel off all the comments that I have heard, but the Government's commitment to ensure that Britain is at the centre of international decision making and is a force for good in the world has certainly been noticed by friends and critics alike. We have used our many valuable assets constructively—especially our diplomatic service and our armed forces, which are both centres of excellence.
My general assessment is that Britain is now once again seen as a leading player on the international stage. We still maintain a strong relationship with the United States. The extent to which the US will move towards a more unilateralist policy remains to be seen—there was an interesting article in yesterday's Financial Times on that theme. However, the abrupt dismissal by the US of its commitments under the Kyoto protocol, its position on national missile defence and its actions in respect of Russia and Vietnam do not give cause for optimism.
The British Government have played a leading role in galvanising action in key areas such as Kosovo, Sierra Leone and East Timor.

Paddy Ashdown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous words earlier and apologise for interrupting


what must, inevitably, be a short speech. He touched on the United States and mentioned several points of concern. However, there are several encouraging things—the handling of the Israeli problem and of the banana issue, and, more recently, the delicate and subtle handling of the problems in China. We ought to cut the US Administration a little slack before deciding about them. Is it not always the case that American Presidents will often express isolationist rhetoric on the campaign trail, but not in practice when they come to government? I have a suspicion that the current US Administration are much more subtle in many of their international actions than we are sometimes encouraged to believe.

Mr. Anderson: Most of my examples were of events that occurred well after the end of the campaign trail; the decisions were made in government. However, I wholly concur with the right hon. Gentleman. We must see how things work out in practice. However, there are none the less some concerns.
Human rights were a large theme in the remarks of the hon. Member for West Suffolk. In 1997, the new Labour Government pledged to make human rights central to their foreign policy. That pledge has been much derided. The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph are prone to printing easy headlines such as, "And they call it an ethical foreign policy!"
We may hear the phrase "an ethical dimension" rather less nowadays, but human rights are no less central. We continue to make concrete achievements. I can make only headline points, given the time constraints. Our influence was crucial in setting up the International Criminal Court, in developing the European Union code of conduct on arms sales and in making progress on debt relief for the world's poorest countries.
During the past four years, there has been much of which we can be proud. We launched the global programme to challenge torture. We led the international campaign against trade in conflict diamonds. Our support for the war crimes tribunal on former Yugoslavia is well known. UK forces have arrested more indicted Bosnian war criminals than those of any other country.
At home, there have clearly been changes, such as the substantially expanded human rights policy department, the newly created human rights project fund and the way in which non-governmental organisations have been brought in from the cold by public diplomacy and are now part of the discussions and debate in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in posts abroad. We have ratified the protocol of the European Court of Human Rights, banning capital punishment in Britain, and we have lobbied foreign Governments on it.
The Opposition are pursuing a dangerous strategy, which puts Britain's interests at stake, by flirting with the idea of leaving the European Union and with the concept of joining the North American Free Trade Area. For example, by refusing to ratify the treaty of Nice, they would block EU enlargement, creating instability in eastern and central Europe and, indeed, making enemies for Britain in several countries in that region. It is sad that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the shadow Ministers are able to say anything positive about the EU. Surely there must be something positive in our region and

in the new organisation in which we play such a large part. If the hon. Member for West Suffolk can point to any positive statement, I shall sit down immediately.

Mr. Spring: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to intervene. I should be very happy to send him a great number of speeches on the subject by the shadow Foreign Secretary. I am disappointed that he thinks that we are somehow anti-European simply because we do not believe that the process of political integration with the EU is right ultimately for the continuation and success of the EU, which is the view of the majority of the British people. That could not be further from the truth.

Mr. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me; he can think of nothing, off hand, that his party has said that is positive about the EU. I shall sit down if he can do so.

Mr. Spring: I have repeatedly said that we welcome the advantages of the EU—such as those involving the single market, that environment and the intense co-operation on policing, drugs and other matters—as well as the role that the Community has undoubtedly played in preserving peace in Europe since the war. We have referred to those issues time and again, so I do not understand where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from.

Mr. Anderson: That is a minimalist agenda, beyond which we and our European partners went many decades ago. It is clear that the only way to have influence is to remain at the heart of discussions. Diplomats who served in the United Kingdom delegation to Brussels in the 1980s told me, rather graphically, how we were marginalised and had our interests adversely affected during that time.
Of course there have been some shortcomings in Government policy. Indeed, the Foreign Affairs Committee has been the source of several well-founded criticisms. We say things as we see them in respect of Gibraltar, Zimbabwe, the delay in tightening arms supply to Indonesia and a number of administrative failures involving Sierra Leone. Again, we acknowledge serious failings relating to arms exports and control, but the Quadripartite Committee has done a most valuable job. In its memorandum of December last year, Saferworld said:
The UK Government's annual report … currently stands as the most transparent report published by any European country, and offers a potential template for best practice throughout the EU".
We have also banned landmines.
On the basis of the Delphic saying, "Know thyself', my conclusion is that we should identify our strategic goals and the best instruments with which we seek to achieve them. This month, in its departmental report, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office clearly set out those strategic goals under the headings, "Security", "Prosperity", "Quality of life" and "Mutual respect". A collective approach is set out very clearly in the motion. Indeed, I could take exception to nothing in the motion.
Gone are the days when we could achieve such goals—or even some of them—on our own. Perhaps the Falklands conflict in the early 1980s and the transition in Hong Kong will be seen by historians as the last examples of the independent policy for which the hon. Member for West Suffolk has such romantic and obsolete hankerings.
Now our goals can be achieved only by making a difference within our alliances and by building coalitions, as we did so successfully at the Nice summit. History and geography have given us a unique global reach through a unique series of alliances—NATO, the European Union, the Security Council of the United Nations, G8 and the Commonwealth. In my judgment, the Government have fully recognised that there is no future in pretending to our electorate that nationalist unilateralist solutions are possible. Self-delusion is the worst delusion.

Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution and to speak in the same debate as my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown). I know that his speech will be studied in years to come because his predictions have the rather depressing habit of coming true.
I shall concentrate my remarks on the unilateral decision by the United States to reject the Kyoto protocol, and I shall explain why only a multilateral response to the threat of climate change will do. A multilateral response is clearly what the current US President's father wanted when he was in the Oval office. He might not have had in mind the world environment organisation at which my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil hinted, but, under George Bush senior, the United States signed the United Nations framework convention on climate change. It states that developed countries should take the lead in combating climate change. There is nothing in it about developing countries having to take the lead.
I hope that George Bush junior and his advisers are considering a multilateral approach. They have been granted an extra few months in which to define their position and I hope that they will adopt a multilateral approach before the COP 6—sixth conference of the parties—talks resume. If they are not considering such an approach, they had better invest in a better server in the White house, because the "flood Bush" e-mails will continue to arrive. I understand that the server has crashed five times already under the weight of those e-mails and it risks being down permanently if Brush persists with his recipe for American excess and global meltdown.
The United Kingdom's good faith and credibility in relation to climate change and the reduction of CO2 emissions would be further enhanced were the Government to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) suggested yesterday. They should allow the Climate Change Bill, which has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), to proceed. It would put on a statutory basis the Labour party's 1997 manifesto commitment of a 20 per cent. reduction in emissions. I cannot think of a better way of ensuring multilateral action than the UK taking unilateral action to reduce its CO2 emissions by an even more significant amount than the legal commitments that have been made and by demonstrating that that is good for business as well as for the environment.
The Deputy Prime Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury was distinctly ungracious and I hope that we shall hear a more considered response from the Minister tonight. What emphatically will not assist in the process of securing multilateral action on climate change are ill-informed

statements by Ministers. Other Members will have seen the comments by Peter Ewins, the chief executive of the Meteorological Office, who told The Times about a week ago that
ministers' remarks about climate change were often so wrong that they made his scientists wince.
The report continued:
He criticised in particular claims by Mr. Prescott … that last November's floods had been caused by global warming.
Mr. Ewins said that such statements were not supported by science and that it was impossible to say that such weather incidents were caused directly by climate change. I hope that Ministers will avoid making such statements because they can be used by the US to justify its lack of action on the important issue of climate change.
Few people can doubt that climate change is a major threat to mankind; fewer still can doubt that it will require a multilateral approach to tackle that menace. Unfortunately, one of those people is the President of the most powerful nation on earth. It is down to the United Kingdom and our European partners to ensure that he comes to his senses.

Mr. Bill Rammell: It is pleasure to speak in the debate that was initiated by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown), who made an excellent speech. Despite the differences between our political parties—sometimes reinforced by the tactics of the Liberal Democrats—[Interruption.] I am going to be generous, so hon. Members should let me finish. Despite those differences, I was reminded of how much common ground there is between us. On the right hon. Gentleman's historical legacy as leader of the third political party, one of his major contributions has been to reposition the Liberal Democrats between the Labour party and the Conservative party. In the longer run, that can only be good for politics. It does not mean that we need pacts or have to merge, merely that where we have a common interest, we should say so.
I agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman said about globalisation needing global solutions. That does not mean rejecting the nation state, but we have to recognise its limitations. We must take account of the fact that a decision taken in a moment in Detroit or Tokyo can cost tens of thousands of jobs in this country. The idea that we can face up to that global challenge within the confines of the nation state is not a sustainable argument.
I also agreed with the right hon. Gentleman about national identity. We all have different identities, and as the regions and localities of the world develop, those identities change. On Europe, an opinion poll finding that often strikes me is that those people who believe that Britain was a once great nation now in decline, have a completely negative attitude towards Britain's position in the European Union; yet those who believe that Britain was a once great nation now on its way back, have a wholly positive attitude. We need to have confidence in our national identity. That is especially true of the English. I do not detect among the Scots, Welsh and the Irish the same uncertainty and reticence, and that affects their attitudes towards Europe. The right hon. Gentleman has made an extremely positive contribution.
I want to focus on the recent decision by the President of the United States to repudiate the Kyoto protocol, which is of enormous concern. I was struck by the comments of the UK's chief scientific adviser during the Kyoto talks, who said:
Even if Co2 emissions were cut by 60 per cent. over the next few years
and let us remember that the Kyoto protocol does not sign us up to anything like a 60 per cent. reduction—
sea levels would continue to rise for centuries.
That is the challenge that we face and it explains why I am so worried about the decision taken by the US President and his Administration.
Members of all political parties can learn significant lessons from the events of the past few weeks. I fear that the first lesson is what those events tell us about the early stance of the new Bush Administration. Their actions during their first 14 weeks in office are cause for concern. Despite significant public opposition, especially within the United States, they are pushing ahead with the proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic national wildlife refuge. There is also a proposal to renege on the supposedly binding agreement that was signed at Kyoto. In addition, there are concerns about decisions beyond the environmental agenda. Given that that is the case after 14 weeks, one might ask whatever happened to "compassionate conservatism", which was the slogan used by the Republican candidate in the run-up to the presidential election. We in this country can learn from that. Many people in the United States are reflecting on what has happened and learning from the intervention of the fundamentalist Greens and Ralph Nader in the presidential election which led directly to the results that we have seen on Kyoto and much else.
There are those who argued that there was no difference between the candidates for the election in America, and in that respect the past 14 weeks have at least taught us an object lesson. The American people have made their choice and I do not criticise it, but there is a lesson for those in this country who claim that there is no difference between this Government and a Conservative Government. Whether those people are in the Socialist Alliance, fundamentalist Green campaigns or the Liberal Democrats, they should reflect on that.
It is enormously instructive to observe what the situation in the United States tells us about the modern-day Conservative party and its stance on national self-interest. Whenever we debate Europe and there is any suggestion of the pooling of sovereignty to achieve a greater end for the nation, the Conservative party accuses us of selling out our national interest. However, when the United States acts in a way that contradicts or attacks our national interest, the Conservatives are at best silent and on most occasions seem almost to acquiesce in the subjugation of our national interest to that of the United States. We hardly hear a squeak from them. We heard from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who said that he regretted the decision by the United States. He then launched into a ritualistic and wholly unjustified attack on the Deputy Prime Minister. If the Conservative party is serious about these issues, it needs to make a better response.

Mr. Spring: The hon. Gentleman made an assertion about the Conservative party's attitude to the United

States, saying that we appear to be essentially hostile to anything to do with the European Union but that we offer no criticism of the United States. Can he give a recent example of that? I am sure that the whole House will be pleased to hear from him.

Mr. Rammell: The whole debate on national missile defence is an example. There is a series of unanswered questions about that proposal and there are genuine concerns that the initiative on its own could lead to an escalation of the arms race. The sensible response is the one that has been made by the Government, who have said that we should wait and see what proposals the United States Administration make and then make a judgment. That is not the response of the Leader of the Opposition or of the Conservative party, which has said that whatever the details are, we should sign up to the initiative. That does not serve the British national interest. The Conservative party's stance on the United States contrasts greatly with its attitude to Europe.

Mr. Spring: I must correct the hon. Gentleman on this point. National missile defence may or may not go ahead and be successful, but the Americans propose to proceed with it. All that we have said, quite responsibly, is that we want to participate in discussions during the evolution of the policy and that we should not be expected to pay for it. That is sensibly in the interests of the British people and indeed all of Europe.

Mr. Rammell: When the matter first became public debate I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that the Government should sign up now and support the proposal. That starkly underlines the way in which the Conservative party undermines the British national interest with its simplistic attitude to a matter that requires sensitive, detailed debate.
There is obvious disagreement about Kyoto and the stance adopted by the American Administration which is felt throughout the advanced world and certainly in Europe and on these Benches, but George Bush is the elected President of the United States, which will continue to be a good friend and ally of this country. We have many common interests and we need to work with the Americans to achieve change on these issues. There are positive grounds for optimism. Recent polling evidence in the United States after the Bush Administration's decision shows that 77 per cent. of people want stronger environmental action Some centrist Republicans are even beginning to realise that the stance taken will not serve their interests as they approach the forthcoming congressional elections.
We must use our position in the special relationship to be a candid friend to the United States and the American President. We must convince the Administration that their stance on the issue is wrong; I believe that there are grounds for optimism. To echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Yeovil, I am convinced more than ever that, in tackling that kind of issue, the country's needs and interests are served by our being at the heart of the European Union, not apart from it, as the Conservative party wish.
The idea that the only remaining global superpower will respond to one national Government, whoever they are, simply does not bear scrutiny. There is a much better chance that it will be forced to respond to the combined


might and pressure of European Union Governments working together. That is the lesson to be learned; whether on this issue or on the World Trade Organisation talks, unless we are at the table with the Europeans, in the longer run we will not even be in the room for international debate and negotiation. We should draw that lesson from the debate.
I know that two other Members wish to take part in our debate, so I turn finally to the United Nations, which has been the major initiative of the past century to achieve multilateral and collectivist solutions. However, anyone who looks at the current structure of the UN knows that it is in significant need of reform. In many senses, it is the main forum for tackling human rights abuses throughout the world yet, too often, it does not fulfil that task.
The conflict in Kosovo taught us more clearly than anything that, when we are taking justifiable action in defence of human rights, the UN does not always provide the best help and support because of its decision-making structure and the right of veto held by permanent members of the Security Council. If we are to proceed with the work of the UN and if it is to provide solutions, it must be subject to fundamental reform and rationalisation and the right of veto held by permanent members of the Security Council should be curtailed; otherwise, the UN will simply be reduced to the lowest common denominator because necessary action in support of human rights will always offend one or other member of the Security Council.
This has been a positive and interesting debate, which underlines the extent to which we need both international and multilateral solutions.

Mr. Mark Oaten: I, too, think that the debate has been positive. Briefly, in my remarks, I want to look back and make an assessment of the Government's progress on their ethical foreign policy and on human rights issues.
From the start, may I say that Liberal Democrat Members welcomed strongly the statement of the Foreign Secretary in 1997 that there would be a change in foreign policy, with the ethical element at its heart. From our perspective that was welcome and a fine contrast to some activities in the 18 previous years. However, we believe strongly that those words are easy and need to be followed by fine actions. We recognise good action on Jubilee 2000 and the abolition of land mines, but a number of major holes remain in the Government's ethical foreign policy.
By far the biggest hole is the Government's failure to introduce legislation on arms exports. The right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred to that and cross-party Select Committees have criticised the Government. Five years after the Scott report, it is disgraceful that no such legislation has been introduced in any Queen's Speech in this Parliament, let alone passed. Of course, we welcome the fact that, in recent months, the Government have said they will introduce a draft export control Bill, and that, in the past two or three years, they have changed elements of legislation in relation to arms exports. It is good that the Government are producing an annual report on export licences, and we welcome that. However, on reading the detail, it is difficult to judge the use to which some arms are being put. There is little detail about end use. For example, the

entry for the Channel Islands sets out the purchase of stun grenades, rifles and other firearms. Anyone would think that the Channel Islands are preparing to go to war, but the real detail is that these items were purchased for a museum. That illustrates the nonsense of not having more information in the annual report. Nevertheless, its publication is welcome.
I am pleased also that the Government have made it clear that they want to tackle the work of brokers. However, there are difficulties in determining how to deal with British brokers who are operating from foreign countries. We need to know more about how the Government propose to tackle that issue.
The greatest failure of the draft legislation that we have seen so far is not to put in place a system of pre-scrutiny of arms exports. If there is to be a genuine attempt to have an ethical foreign policy, that must start by allowing a cross-party group of Members to engage in pre-scrutiny to assess where arms are going.
I understand that there are some concerns about the delay that pre-scrutiny might cause within the system. There are business men in my constituency who share these concerns. When they have been trying to export goods, they have been frustrated at times by long delays. However, I do not think that pre-scrutiny would cause delay. The vast number of products and goods that are being exported would not be required to go through such a system. It may be that only about 10 or 12 would. The process, which is already very delayed, would not be held up much more by allowing a cross-party group of Members to engage in pre-scrutiny.
The second argument to be advanced is that pre-scrutiny would cause competition difficulties. It is said that if we were to open up the process, commercially sensitive contracts would be open for all to examine. It is suggested that other companies that perhaps were not aware that contracts were up for bidding would suddenly start to get in on the bidding process. Again, I think that that is a bogus argument against pre-scrutiny. It is not as if a Committee of Members will put up a big notice saying, "These contracts are out for bidding." If we trust Members, as we do now, to scrutinise MI5 and MI6—our intelligence services—surely we can trust them in the same way to examine arms exports.
If I were a Minister, I would want a "get out of jail card"—an insurance policy. What more effective insurance policy could one have as a Minister than knowing that a decision that might have to be taken in private had been endorsed by a cross-party group of Members in advance? That is one of the most compelling arguments. It would assure a Minister that his lonely decision has already been considered by a number of Members and approved. That system is good enough for the United States, which has overcome the possible difficulties. It is good enough also for Sweden.
Cross-party groups and the Quadripartite Committee and others all recommend the system as the way forward. I was pleased to hear that in a Select Committee this afternoon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he still has an open mind on the matter. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
If we are to have proper practice in place, there must be proper end-use monitoring. There is a concern that if we are exporting arms, it is extremely difficult to track down where they end up. I accept that it will be a difficult


system to implement, given that monitoring will be difficult. However, having pre-scrutiny in place would surely allow pressure groups and others, via Members, to highlight some of the potential concerns about how end misuse could take place.

Mr. David Heath: I am pleased with what my hon. Friend is saying about the need for pre-scrutiny of arms sales. Will he accept from me, as someone who served in the early days on the Quadripartite Committee, that that Committee has moved a long way from the point at which it started in agreeing the present position? If a disparate group of Members can do that, I am sure that the Government can make the same journey.

Mr. Oaten: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If four respected groups have come together in that way, there is still the opportunity for the Government to listen to the concerns that have been expressed. I hope that the Government will indicate that the issue is still open for discussion.
One reason why we need to have a system of pre-scrutiny in place is what has been taking place in Indonesia. For those of us who are interested in human rights issues it seems a fine example of why we need to have proper arms export controls in place. One of the most disappointing things that the Government did was to continue with the contracts to supply Hawk jets to Indonesia. There were ample opportunities to review those contracts, and it was disappointing that the Foreign Office allowed them to stand. It is difficult to prove that Hawk jets have been used in human rights violations; equally, it is hard to prove that they have not been so used. We know, for example, that water cannon have been used in Jakarta against students protesting there. A pre-scrutiny panel would not have allowed such arms sales to Indonesia to continue.
I shall touch briefly on a couple of other issues on which I would welcome the Minister's comments. This morning I met the Reverend Jackie Maraputi, who is a representative on human rights issues of the Protestant Church in the Moluccas. The Minister will know of the extremely difficult situation in that region over the past 12 months. The good news that Reverend Maraputi told me was that the Protestants and some of the Muslims are working closely together for reconciliation, and there is real hope that some of the difficulties in the region will be overcome as a result of that effort. Those difficulties have led to almost 8,000 deaths in the past two years.
The most encouraging thing that the reverend told me was that some of the more extreme Muslim militant leaders have decided to take part in that process. What support can the British Government or the British Council offer to help to fund that process? He made it clear that the problems can be solved without outside interference, but that funding and support from the British Council would be extremely helpful.
The bad news was that some of the human rights violations continue. The forced religious conversions are still taking place. There are appalling cases of the forced circumcision of children as young as six. People are forced to change their names and married couples are forced to

undertake a different marriage service to change their religion. All that, I am told, sometimes takes place with the Indonesian army watching and, on occasion, handing out medicine to those who have undergone forced circumcision. It would be helpful if the Minister would indicate whether he is prepared to put pressure on the United Nations or the European Union for the independent monitoring of events on some of the Indonesian islands.
Finally, in relation to Indonesia, there is concern about the situation of those who are trying to avoid such atrocities. There are estimated to be about 2,000 refugees in the islands of Seram, Dura and North Molucca. They are hiding in the jungle, and they need aid and food. Will the Minister confirm that the best way of achieving that would be to put pressure on the Indonesian Government to get food and vital medicine into the jungle? Again, we need monitoring to establish the extent of the problem.
In conclusion, I do not suggest that the problems in Indonesia are a direct result of the arms that we are providing. However, we want the Government to be more active in the region. The example of Indonesia demonstrates the need for proper arms control to be in place. None of us can say that a jet, a cannon or other military equipment has not been used in the Indonesian region in a way that we would find repulsive. I hope that if the Government are given the chance to govern again, they will quickly introduce legislation on arms exports. That remains a serious hole in the ethical foreign policy which we on the Literal Democrat Benches support.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I want to thank the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown), before he leaves, for selecting the subject for debate tonight and particularly for his excellent rendition of Housman's poems. As I grew up in Shropshire, almost under the shroud of Housman, I fully appreciated their spirit. His prophetic utterances about the dangers of the first world war turned out to be entirely true. It is time that we heard more poetry in the House. A great deal can be learned from it, and it is better than the prose that we usually hear.
My next point is not intended as a criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, but the debate is in danger of becoming a self-satisfied discussion about what the rich northern world thinks about its place in the globe. In reality, we are one country in a world where, appallingly, a quarter of the population lives at starvation level and many have life expectancies that would mean that virtually every hon. Member present would be long dead. Life expectancy is constantly falling in many of the poorest countries. It is now down to less than 40 years in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa. We live in a world in which the basic human rights of many people in respect of the ordinary ability to live—never mind of political expression—are completely lacking. We must do an awful lot better in this century than we managed to do in previous ones.
I want to draw attention to three points. I do not want to speak at great length about the generality, but I think that the theme of our debate must be world peace, world social justice and environmental sustainability, and the need seriously to support international organisations that can achieve those aims. I refer especially to the possibility of ensuring that the UN's role in the world is much enhanced, rather than diminished. We should debate those


issues more often. Indeed, I think that our procedures would be improved if there were a more effective way of monitoring what we actually do at the United Nations. For example, we could establish a Select Committee on United Nations affairs or ensure that we receive a report back about what goes on at the UN. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights is just completing its work, but I do not suppose that we will hear one word about it in the Chamber, other than the few mentions that it will receive tonight. However, what is currently occurring in Geneva is crucial and it deserves much greater publicity than it has so far received.
As I said, I want to refer only to thee issues, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak. The first directly concerns the United Nations and the Security Council, which is meeting tomorrow morning. At the meeting, it will receive a report from the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, on the situation in the western Sahara. The western Sahara has been occupied by Morocco since 1974, but despite year after year of agreements, pledges and arguments about the voters' role, there has been no referendum, and the fundamental right of the people of the western Sahara to vote on their future in a free and fair referendum has not been recognised. I understand that the Secretary-General will not specify a date by which the referendum should occur in tomorrow's report, but will instead ask for an extension of the MINURSO—the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara—mandate until the end of June, to enable him and other officials to continue progress on the possibilities of devolving power into the western Sahara from Morocco.
Over the years, I have initiated a number of debates on the western Sahara, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), and I know that that is not what the people of the area have been campaigning for and demanding all these years. They want the right to vote on their self-determination. I am sorry to say that, if we merely keep imposing delays, hot war fighting will break out again, whatever the oratorical abilities of the leaders of Polisario or any other group. I do not want that and I do not advocate it. I want a peaceful solution, but I believe that the right to a referendum should be sacrosanct, and I hope that the British representative at tomorrow's Security Council meeting will make that point.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cause of the people of western Sahara and their right to a referendum have not been helped by the British Government's recent decision to allow the repair of gun parts and arms? I understand that the work was carried out against the will of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which was overruled by the Department of Trade and Industry. Does he agree that that was a very false move?

Mr. Corbyn: I am glad that the hon. Lady intervened; she made a point that I was going to make anyway. I agree that if we want to achieve a peaceful solution to what is, for want of a better term, a post-colonial conflict, it is not sensible for us to allow the refurbished arms to go to Morocco. We know that there is no external threat to Morocco from anybody and that the weapons can be used only in an internal conflict—it will be internal in terms of the current political arrangements—against the people of western Sahara.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that it remains the British Government's position to support a referendum in which the people of western Sahara can vote freely on whether to be part of Morocco or to follow their own independent path.
The people of East Timor had that right. As one who observed the referendum in East Timor, I know that when a referendum takes place, United Nations officials have to attend—they did wonderful work in East Timor—but some security system must be put in place immediately afterwards. The carnage in East Timor after the referendum was horrific to witness.
This afternoon, I attended a briefing for Members of Parliament by a lawyer who represented LAW, the Palestinian legal rights group. The picture that she painted of the conflict in the middle east, the attacks in the Palestinian territory and the heavy weaponry that Israel deploys was horrific. I hope that the British Government will renew their criticisms of Israel's actions in the occupied territories and help to bring about some serious developments that will lead to a long-term peace process. The more the helicopter gunships go in and the more bombardments, random arrests and killings that occur, the more the chances for long-term peace diminish. They are diminishing by the day. The rest of the world must engage in upholding the rights of people to a peaceful existence.
Many UN resolutions have been passed to support the right of the Palestinian people to have a safe, secure place in which to live. Israeli forces have breached them often. Despite the supposedly even-handed approach and way in which the media report the conflict, the victims of the current conflict in Israel and Palestine are predominantly the poor and Palestinian civilians.
The LAW briefing stated:
Between 28 September 2000 and 17 April 2001 390 Palestinian civilians have been killed and over 12,000 injured by Israeli soldiers and settlers. 73 Jewish Israelis have been killed and about 400 injured. About 84 per cent. of those Palestinians killed and 99.5 per cent. of those injured have been civilians who are not members of the Palestinian National Security forces.
Any death is to be regretted and deplored, but the conflict is hardly even handed. Using helicopter gunships against a civilian population is an outrage anywhere in the world at any time. We should deplore that and try to encourage a peace process in the middle east.
My last point concerns the huge issue of national missile defence and the role of President Bush, who was not elected but somehow achieved office. We live in one world where 36,000 nuclear weapons are available. The Bush Administration are hellbent on developing a national missile defence system that was initially devised by Ronald Reagan and the defence companies. Defence contractors are doing well; they are making billions of pounds from Government contracts. The four main defence contractors in the United States receive a fast rate of return for the $34 million that they spend on lobbying on Capitol Hill and the $3.7 million that they contributed to Congress members' election campaigns last year.
The danger for the rest of the world is enormous. The incident involving the spy plane and the rising tension between China and the United States showed the dangers. We hear the rhetoric of right-wing think tanks in the USA that casts China as the enemy and claims that developing national missile defence will somehow protect the US for all time from any events elsewhere in the world. That is


crazy and extremely dangerous. Going ahead would require rewriting if not tearing up the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Countries worked hard for that treaty and it constituted an important step forward. It would also require tearing up the treaty that provides for space to be a weapon-free zone, and would at least undermine the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
While many European countries have said that they oppose national missile defence and would not be prepared to grant facilities for it, most other countries in the world are terrified at the very idea of national missile defence, the nuclearisation of space and all that goes with it. I would hope, therefore, that instead of waiting for the US to make an application to us, this country would join in and say that we, too, are not prepared to grant facilities for, or be supportive of, the national missile defence proposals put forward by the United States.
If we want to live in a world that tackles environmental destruction and pollution, poverty, human rights abuses and the small wars that are going on with terrible consequences all round the globe, how on earth does national missile defence fit into that, other than to stuff full of gold the companies that have already been manufacturing weapons of mass destruction for a long time and to encourage the redevelopment of a nuclear arms race between Russia, China and the United States that can only be dangerous and damaging to the rest of the world?
I would have hoped that in this century we would have learned some of the lessons of the wars of the previous century, so that we could say no to this system and encourage others to say no to it. We should put all the pressure that we can on the US Administration to abandon this mad system and instead use that skill and technology to do something good for this planet rather than something bad and dangerous.

Mr. David Chaytor: I know that time is pressing, so I shall be as brief as I possibly can.
First, I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) for his excellent introductory speech and particularly for his comments on the complexity of identity in the modern world. I found his somewhat apocalyptic vision of the years ahead disconcerting, although I share some aspects of it.
It was also encouraging, during the early part of the debate, to see the Liberal Democrat section of the Opposition Benches full while the Conservative part was virtually empty. For those of us who have, from time to time, anticipated the possibility of a realignment of British politics whereby the Liberal Democrats would become the official Opposition, those moments were encouraging.
I want to associate myself completely with all the comments made by my hon. Friends, and to pick up particularly on the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). In the course of the debate, there have been several references to the American position on the Kyoto protocol and the American attitude towards national missile defence. I do not think that the link between those two United States policy positions has been noted. It is not arbitrary that the

Americans have become so intransigent over Kyoto, or that they have become so obsessed by national missile defence.
A scenario is emerging wherein the United States has decided that it is prepared, as the 21st century moves on, to do everything possible to maintain its current position as the world's only superpower. It sees the main threat to that coming from economic development in China, and I feel that the justification given for the national missile defence system—that it is somehow a system to protect the United States against casual, irrational attacks by a small number of rogue states—is absolutely ludicrous.
If any of those alleged rogue states wished to attack the United States, they could easily do so with a nuclear bomb in a suitcase, or by the importation of the foot and mouth disease virus. That would be far more effective than trying to launch a full-scale nuclear attack. The national missile defence system seems, therefore, to be a pretext for the Americans' developing vision of the future, in which, some time in the second decade of this century, they will be prepared to fight—and intend to win—a nuclear war with China to maintain their economic supremacy.
The importance of President Bush's recently announced opposition to the Kyoto protocol is that the Americans are prepared to continue the exploitation of fossil fuels, and are determined to maintain their control over the majority of the world's oil reserves to fuel their economy to maintain their supremacy.
I want yet again to flag up—as have other Members—the crucial importance of exercising our Government's influence to persuade the United States to see sense and finally agree to an international system for a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions; of the need to develop renewable technologies; and that the continuing use of fossil fuels will not necessarily enable economic supremacy to be maintained. In fact, as the years go by, it is likely to be the countries with high-level skills and manufacturing capacity in renewable technologies that develop economic competence and supremacy.
I hope that our Government will do that, but I hope that at the same time they will use their influence, if not to oppose national missile defence directly, then to delay, prevaricate, cajole and even to try to persuade the United States to consider alternatives to the existing proposals.
I think that the general view in the House is that our Government should resist national missile defence and the Americans' position on the Kyoto protocol. However, we cannot adopt that stance alone. That returns me to the starting point and the main theme of the debate: in the modern world, multilateral action is the only basis for foreign policy.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: This has been an extremely thoughtful debate, featuring well-argued contributions from all quarters.
It would be wrong of me not to begin by thanking those on the Front Benches—the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), and the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring)—for the generous tributes that they paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). They paid tribute not just to my right hon. Friend's sparkling contribution this evening, but


to his contribution over a long period—but especially while he was leader of the Liberal Democrats—to a number of important foreign policy issues. I know that my right hon. Friend is very grateful for their generosity.
The Minister of State had to indulge in some pretty close textual analysis to find a justification for the Government's amendment, as opposed to the motion. As the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) pointed out, they are so close that, by kicking over the traces for once in his ministerial life—he did it often enough in his political life before becoming a Minister—the Minister might just be able to find himself in the same Lobby as us.
As I said, this has been a thoughtful occasion, and no one has been more thoughtful on these matters than my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil. This evening, we witnessed a remarkable demonstration of his insight and eloquence; but before moving on to some of the issues that were raised in the debate, let me remind the House that, in terms of foreign policy, my right hon. Friend has not only displayed insight and eloquence but, on occasion, shown rare courage.
That has not always been popular in the House. I remember, for instance, the time when my right hon. Friend rose to say that all Hong Kong residents should have passports that might entitle them to come and live in the United Kingdom. I can tell those who were not present that that was not exactly a popular thing to say. I also remember my right hon. Friend's insistence that our party should support Lady Thatcher—an increasingly unpopular Prime Minister in her own party and in the country—when it came to the issue of whether the Government should back the effort to expel Iraq from Kuwait.
I remember, too, my right hon. Friend's insistence—in the face of some pretty formidable arguments and quite a lot of heavy flak from the leader of the Labour party, the then right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East—that our party should support a Government who were deeply embattled over the Maastricht treaty, at a time when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was confronted with extraordinary disloyalty from certain Back Benchers, some of whom appear to have experienced a renaissance on the Front Bench of today's Conservative party.
I remember, too, my right hon. Friend arguing knowledgeably and passionately— and not always achieving great popularity in the House—for early intervention in the Balkans. He also exposed the illusion of safe havens in an exchange of correspondence with the then Prime Minister that was best described as incendiary.
We Liberal Democrats will miss my right hon. Friend, but the House will also be the poorer. Those who have been the particular losers this evening are those Conservatives who have found themselves—no doubt under the heavy pressure of engagements and other responsibilities—compelled to stay away. It may be that they are out looking for other recruits such as Mr. James Mawdsley, to bring them into the bosom of the Conservative party. When the hon. Member for West Suffolk described the recruitment of Mr. Mawdsley, I was reminded that in the 18th century the Duchess of Gordon used to encourage recruits into her husband's regiment by the presentation of a shilling and the offer of a kiss.

I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) fulfils that function in today's Conservative party.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk mentioned Europe, but I remind him that the Maastricht treaty talked not of a common defence policy but of a common foreign and security policy. It also envisaged something called a "common defence", which would be a united defence. That treaty was driven through the House on a three-line Whip by the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, a supporter.
The hon. Gentleman taxed us with a lack of confidence about Europe. As someone who has lived all his life in a country with a single currency but two separate legal systems, I have never had any discomfort in asserting my Scottishness. Nor would I have any anxiety about asserting my Britishness in a European Union with a single currency of which the UK was a member. It is hardly likely either that the German or French characters will be dissipated or irretrievably damaged so as to make them invisible through being members of the single European currency. If any party lacks confidence about Europe, it is today's Conservative party, which has travelled a long way since the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), with great courage, insisted that the UK should join what was then the Common Market.
The Minister was kind enough to refer to the fact that, last year, before the millennium summit, the Foreign Secretary and I sought to produce a joint position on the United Nations. I am sure that in recent weeks other hon. Members have experienced newspapers ringing them up and asking them to summarise in 40 words the achievement of which they are most proud. That is a somewhat precious question, and I have consistently failed to return the newspapers' calls. However, if I was forced under the thumbscrew to reply, I would admit to being most proud of that joint document that the Foreign Secretary and I produced. As the Minister generously pointed out, it formed a substantial part of the British Government's submission at the millennium summit and, in my humble and perhaps overly self-congratulatory opinion, made a sensible and reasoned contribution to the debate about the future of the United Nations.
We must have a United Nations that has a collective capacity to prevent gross and persistent abuses of human rights. The UN is an imperfect institution of course, but it is the only truly global institution. It has universal membership, and that gives it a unique legitimacy. Of course, the imperfections must be remedied. The structure of the Security Council must be reformed, as must the nature of the funding. It simply is not right that the richest country on earth should be most in arrears with its contributions. The UN must also enjoy the support of those countries with real military capability. Part of the problem in Sierra Leone was not the number but the quality of the forces offered to the United Nations. That is why a stalemate continues in that country, with the British training of the Sierra Leone army and the UN insufficiently capable of performing its responsibility in the proposed long-term effort to return the whole country to democratic rule.
It is also right, as the Minister said, that the rules of engagement for the United Nations must be drawn in terms that are sufficiently robust to ensure that we do not have to stand by and watch the horror of Srebrenica


unfold again. In my judgment, that name will reverberate down the years, marking a place where the United Nations, for all its idealism and the high-flown rhetoric attached to it, failed.
For the people who suffered most there, even the mention of Srebrenica and the recollection of what it involved induce a shudder. Apart from those whose husbands, sons and brothers were the victims, their numbers include the Dutch peacekeepers who were forced to stand by. Their calls for air strikes to try and prevent the massacre that took place went unanswered. That was a bad day for the United Nations, and we should do everything in our power to ensure that such a day never occurs again.
Human rights must lie at the heart of foreign policy. Human rights and personal freedom should not be the prerogative of the well-off, the well-governed or the well-connected. The motion recognises the universality of human rights. I venture to suggest that that must be the keystone of a foreign policy with an ethical dimension—indeed, the United Nations declaration of human rights is described as a declaration of universal rights.
However, it is not enough simply to acknowledge the existence of those rights. We have a duty to implement them as well. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is not in his place at the moment, but he made a series of penetrating observations about the position of the Palestinians.
I yield to no one in my determination to ensure that the people of Israel have the right to live in peace in the country that they now occupy, but that right cannot be considered to be mutually inconsistent with the human rights of the Palestinian people. The House need only consider the weapons ranged on either side of the argument—Apache helicopter gunships and tanks on the one side, and Kalashnikovs and rockets on the other. There is no doubt where the balance of military advantage lies. If we are serious about human rights, we should be arguing the case for the right of the people of Israel to live where they do, and for the human right of the Palestinians not to be treated as they have been treated recently.
A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), spoke about the consequences of the unwillingness of the United States to accept the Kyoto protocol. The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) put that unwillingness in the context of apparently unilateral action on the part of the United States.
I recognise that a number of the things that have been done in recent times by the United States have given more than an impression of a determination to press ahead unilaterally, but they do not all date from the installation of the new Bush Administration. The Clinton Administration declined to support the International Criminal Court until their very final days. That was only done to embarrass the incoming President, not for reasons of the proposal's substance or the particular merits that it might enjoy. It was the Clinton Administration who felt compelled to proceed with the tests for national missile defence, and who were part of the dispute about bananas and the access of British goods to United States markets that involved cashmere workers in the Scottish borders.
The feeling that the United States is acting unilaterally does not arise solely from the deeds of the new Bush Administration. I share some of the anxieties in that regard that have been expressed in the debate, but we must understand that a degree of rhetoric has been involved, in the presidential campaign and in the Administration's first 100 days. In the past week or so, there have been some signs that, with the increasing influence of Secretary of State Colin Powell, the United States' policy may be less unilateral than we feared. For example, its intervention with regard to the invasion of Israeli troops, described by Colin Powell as disproportionate, resulted in Mr. Sharon immediately giving the order that the tanks should be withdrawn.
With regard to China, some of the exhortations and advice offered from Capitol Hill were enough to turn one's hair white. Mr. Bush resisted some of the more extreme recommendations from the Republican party.
The dispute about bananas has rumbled on for three, four or five years. The Minister, who had a great deal to do with the issue in a previous existence, understands its complexity. Yet that dispute has been settled.
In Taiwan, there was every suggestion that, as a reaction to the seizure of the American spy plane, the Bush Administration might, on a tit-for-tat basis, offer the Taiwanese Government the Aegis-equipped destroyers. No such offer has been made. These may be straws in the wind but they cause us to approach the issue of unilateral action on the part of the United States with a little more caution.
On national missile defence, close observers say that there has been a change in temperature in recent weeks. I do not know how it will turn out; my party has made its position clear. However, I suggest that there is every prospect that the American Government might be able to strike a deal with that great deal-maker Mr. Putin. It is not difficult to envisage the basis of some agreement to allow the amendment to the anti-ballistic missile treaty—the provision of more money, as was given under the Nunn-Lugar scheme, for dealing with the detritus of nuclear weapons, a reduction in strategic nuclear warheads, a share in technology and, finally—something that may be more difficult for some to accept—an undertaking that the United States would not press for any further expansion of NATO up to the borders of Russia. It is not impossible to envisage a bargain along those lines. That may do with regard to Russia but it leaves out the attitudes of China, which are clearly of great significance in determining whether the perceived advantage of national missile defence is justified by what would undoubtedly be some disadvantages.
The Foreign Secretary, who very courteously advised me that he would be unable to be present because he was speaking at the Lord Mayor's banquet, may just be getting to his feet to talk about foreign policy. I earnestly hope that the words "ethical dimension" will pass his lips. When he made that declaration, approximately four years ago, it enjoyed the universal support and acclaim of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. Since then, it is fair to say, on an entirely objective basis, that there has been some rowing back. Words such as "constructive" or even "critical engagement" have been thrown about more often. It is not inconsistent to be constructively engaged with a country while ensuring that one's policies towards that country display an ethical dimension.
We have been most disappointed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) said most eloquently a moment ago, in relation to arms exports. There is no doubt that there was considerable embarrassment in some parts of the Government that the first act of the incoming Labour Government four years ago was not to cancel arms sales to Indonesia, then under a rather different Government. Such a cancellation would have been entirely legitimate; it could not have resulted in any legal consequences. Arms exports are part of foreign policy, which is part of the Executive prerogative. In my judgment—a legal as much as a political judgment—a decision to discontinue arms exports for foreign policy reasons cannot be attacked. There was great disappointment that the Government did not do that. We hope that the Government will learn from the disappointments that they have caused and the embarrassments that have been suffered in some Departments.
Finally, let me turn to the principle of collective action which lies behind the motion. Foreign affairs are regulated, as we know, by treaties and by conventions. However, they are also regulated by our membership of the European Union, the United Nations, the Commonwealth, NATO and the G8—whether by treaty provision, by the terms of a convention or by the obligations, expressed or implied, imposed on us by membership of those organisations. Foreign policy is conducted in accordance with those obligations. It is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil properly pointed out, an issue of pooled sovereignty. However, to achieve influence over the global economy, climate change and threats to peaceful co-existence, we need to enhance, improve and increase those partnerships.
I venture to suggest that we should no longer talk of great powers, but of great partnerships. If we do not take the collective approach that the motion and many speakers in the debate have urged, we risk the recreation of the competitive system of the 19th century, which spawned the disasters of the 20th. In the 21st century, we should surely learn the lessons of the past 100 years.

Mr. Wilson: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall wind up the debate.
I agree with the right hon. and earned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) that the debate has been good and thoughtful. It has proved one thing beyond doubt: a Tory boycott greatly enhances the quality of debate in the Chamber. I can say with absolute confidence that less nonsense has been spoken from the Tory Back Benches tonight than on any occasion since 1997—long may that continue.
On a much more serious note, I have been asked by several Members whether there is any further news from Zimbabwe this evening. We contacted the high commission in Harare at 9.15 and there is nothing further to report. However, as I told the House earlier, we shall take stock in the morning and we hall of course keep hon. Members informed.
I shall try to cover some of the issues raised during the debate. Obviously, I shall write to hon. Members on other matters. We discussed Indonesia, the western Sahara and many other topics of real and detailed concern to hon. Members. I undertake to write to hon. Members on those subjects that I cannot cover.
I have some good news for my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who referred to the importance of the meetings in Geneva this week of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I fully agree with my hon. Friend's comments on the significance of those meetings. I am delighted to inform the House that earlier today, in Geneva, we and our EU partners secured the adoption by consensus of a draft resolution on torture. As a result the mandate of the UN special rapporteur on torture, Sir Nigel Rodley, has been renewed for a further three years. In achieving that, we had to fight off repeated attempts from some countries to weaken that mandate and, indeed, to criticise the UN special rapporteur for his work. The steps that are being taken are incremental, but I contend that they are taking us in the right direction, with Britain in the vanguard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and other hon. Members asked about our position on Kyoto. The UK's position on climate change is to be publicly committed to achieving our Kyoto targets. We do not think that there is a need for a specific climate change Bill, because the programme announced in November 2000 will reduce greenhouse emissions far beyond the Kyoto targets of 12.5 per cent. According to those criteria, they will be 23 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. We shall continue to hold a dialogue with the United States on its position, but there is no doubt about our position; it is support for achieving the Kyoto targets.
I shall use the few minutes left for my speech mainly to discuss ethical foreign policy—three words that should certainly cross the lips of anyone who speaks on behalf of the United Kingdom on foreign affairs. We should proceed with some humility; there are few absolutes in these matters and we should all recognise that, whatever we do, sometimes we make errors and misjudgments. However, the two criteria that matter are, first, motives and, secondly, the knowledge that progress is being made. On both those counts, I believe that the Government, especially the Foreign Secretary, have been true to the ethical objectives that we set ourselves in 1997. Frankly, I am not greatly interested in the views of the Tory party, in relation to which a decent period of silence on those matters should be measured in decades rather than mere years.
I welcome the judgment of Amnesty International, which said:
The balance sheet
—of the Labour Government in office—
shows a record of real achievement.
It is a long time since Amnesty said that about a British Government. I value Lord Scott's view, as quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), who made an observation about the remarkable change that he can see, compared with the grubby and reckless scandals on which he reported just a few years ago under another Administration.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) asked me to comment on the arms export Bill. The export control Bill will be a major measure. It is not as though nothing has happened in the past four years, but if we introduce something as major as an export control Bill, there must be consultation. If we aim to streamline existing procedures, some of which date back to the second world war and, in addition, introduce new provisions in complex matters, such as trafficking and


brokering, it is important to allow adequate time for consultation. It is equally important that the past four years should not have been a hiatus during which nothing happened.
From my own relatively recent experience in dealing with such applications, I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House about the thoroughness, care and depth with which each application in researched and about the way in which we who ultimately have to make the decisions treat them and try to get the balance right in each case. The Government remain committed to introducing such a Bill as soon as possible.
On the specific point about prior scrutiny by the Committee, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it remains under consideration, subject to those complex issues, including those that he mentioned, such as commercial confidentiality and the timely processing of export licence applications. The motive comes from the two criteria that I mentioned earlier. First, the motivation must be right. Secondly, progress is being made in that direction. Again, to compare the position now with that four years ago is to compare day with night. Perhaps that is the reason why the Conservative Back Benches are silent and empty. People's memories go back more than four years.
On the ethical foreign policy, we have a good story to tell, and across the world since 1997, the United Kingdom has set the agenda as a force for good. If we consider issues that were stale and hopeless and about which people despaired of progress being made, such as the Lockerbie trial, the Salman Rushdie fatwa, the Balkans and the role of Milosevic, East Timor, Sierra Leone and so on, the United Kingdom has been in the vanguard of ethical policies. Perhaps things are imperfect. We make no claims of perfection, but the policy is certainly ethical and progressive. We have taken a stand in defence of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq and on conflict diamonds.

Mr. Spring: What about Zimbabwe?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman shouts that from a sedentary position, but he has nothing much to say about anything. What about the Tory party's record in southern Africa over a very long time? Again, the Conservative party's record calls for a long silence.
Our efforts to establish the International Criminal Court and our anti-torture campaign; our leadership against the death penalty, which I referred to earlier; our action against landmines; and the different regime on arms sales and the consultation on the Bill that I have mentioned should all be considered. Not everything has been done, but there have been debt initiatives and changes have taken place in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where there are more women and more people from ethnic minorities and more exchanges with non-governmental organisations and businesses. All that is covered by the term "ethical foreign policy". When we eventually ask the country to give us a mandate, it will be on the basis that we have demonstrated that this Government have acted honourably and ethically.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes, 40, Noes 291.

Division No. 196]
[10 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Keetch, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kirkwood, Archy


Baker, Norman
Livsey, Richard


Beggs, Roy
Llwyd, Elfyn


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Brake, Tom
Moore, Michael


Brand, Dr Peter
Oaten, Mark


Breed, Colin
Öpik, Lembit


Burnett, John
Rendel, David


Burstow, Paul
Russsell, Bob (Colchester)



Sanders, Adrian


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Chidgey, David
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Cotter, Brian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Tyler, Paul


Fearn, Ronnie
Wallace, Rt Hon James


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Webb, Steve


Gidley, Sandra
Willis, Phil


Harris, Dr Evan



Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mr. Andrew Stunell and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Sir Robert Smith.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Alexander, Douglas



Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)



Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clelland, David


Austin, John
Clwyd, Ann


Bailey, Adrian
Coaker, Vernon


Barnes, Harry
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Battle, John
Coleman, Iain


Bayley, Hugh
Colman, Tony


Beard, Nigel
Connarty, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Begg, Miss Anne
Corston, Jean


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Crausby, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Cummings, John


Benton, Joe
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire


Berry, Roger
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Best, Harold
Darvill, Keith


Betts, Clive
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davidson, Ian


Blizzard, Bob
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dawson, Hilton


Borrow, David
Denham, Rt Hon John


Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)
Dismore, Andrew


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dobbin, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Donohoe, Brian H


Browne, Desmond
Doran, Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Dowd, Jim


Burden, Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Edwards, Huw


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Efford, Clive


Casale, Roger
Ennis, Jeff


Caton, Martin
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Cawsey, Ian
Fisher, Mark


Chaytor, David
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Clapham, Michael
Flynn, Paul






Follett, Barbara
Kidney, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gerrard, Neil
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Gibson, Dr Ian
Laxton, Bob


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lepper, David


Godman, Dr Norman A
Leslie, Christopher


Godsiff, Roger
Levitt, Tom


Goggins, Paul
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Linton, Martin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lock, David


Grogan, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Gunnell, John
McCabe, Steve


Hain, Peter
McCrea, Dr William


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McFall, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hanson, David
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mackinlay, Andrew


Healey, John
MacShane, Denis


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McWalter, Tony


Hendrick, Mark
McWilliam, John


Hepburn, Stephen
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Heppell, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hesford, Stephen
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hill, Keith
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Martlew, Eric


Hood, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hope, Phil
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Howells, Dr Kim
Miller, Andrew


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mitchell, Austin


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hutton, John



Iddon, Dr Brian
Mudie, George


Illsley, Eric
Mullin, Chris


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jamieson, David
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jenkins, Brian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pickthall, Colin


Joyce, Eric
Pike, Peter L


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pond, Chris


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pope, Greg


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pound, Stephen


Khabra, Piara S
Powell, Sir Raymond





Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stevenson, George


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Prosser, Gwyn
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Quinn, Lawrie
Stringer, Graham


Rammell, Bill
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Rapson, Syd
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick



Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Temple—Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Timms, Stephen


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tipping, Paddy


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Todd, Mark


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Touhig, Don


Rowlands, Ted
Trickett, Jon


Roy Frank
Truswell, Paul


Ruane Chris
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ruddock Joan
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Salter, Martin
Tynan, Bill


Savidge, Malcolm
Ward, Ms Claire


Sawford, Phil
Wareing, Robert N


Shaw, Jonathan
Watts, David


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wicks, Malcolm


Shipley, Ms Debra
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wilson Brian


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Winnick, David


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wood, Mike


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Woodward, Shaun


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Worthington, Tony


Soley, Clive
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Spellar, John



Squire, Ms Rachel
Tellers for the Noes:


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mr. Ian Pearson and


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Graham Allen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House believes that the United Kingdom's national interests are best served by addressing the challenges of the modern world in constructive partnership with other countries and international organisations; further believes that human rights and protection of the environment are important global issues which are central to Her Majesty's Government's foreign policy; and welcomes the Government's full support for the work of the United Nations and initiatives to improve UN peacekeeping and the effectiveness of the Security Council.

Nortel Networks, Paignton

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Mr. Adrian Sanders: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise an important issue for my constituents and people in neighbouring constituencies.
I shall begin by plotting some of the history of my constituency, which like all seaside resorts in this country, and certainly the big important ones, developed during the Victorian era, very much as a result of the railways. Much of the infrastructure in such communities has not been renewed, although it has been repaired, and perhaps, in some cases, updated. Tourism has had to cope with a number of competitive changes. The most significant was the development of the jet engine, which brought the package holiday in the Mediterranean and other parts of the world much closer for the domestic tourist. Other changes include the growth of farm and inner-city tourism, often through nationally funded developments of museums, galleries and other attractions. There has been little investment in tourism over the past 50 years, and each seaside resort, my own in particular, has sought to diversify its economy.
One of the main motives for diversification is the fact that many seaside resorts have become unemployment black spots, with rates above the national average. Torbay has been lucky, in that in the 1960s Standard Telephones and Cables built a plant that was taken over, in the 1980s by ITT, and in the 1990s by Nortel, which later changed its name to Nortel Networks. Up to 5,000 people have been employed on that site, engaged in what was the very basics of the electronics industry, and has now become the modern-day fibre-optic industry. It became the largest private sector employer in the area covered by the Government office of the south-west. Last year, for the first time, manufacturing overtook tourism in its contribution to our local economy.
When I say that 75 per cent. of all internet traffic in north America is carried on equipment made by people in my constituency, and that firms such as Sifam, better known today as JDS Uniphase, are located there, the House will realise that the area has become the centre for the fibre-optic industry in Europe.
Last Christmas, we were in the unprecedented position of having job vacancies in hotels and catering over the Christmas break. Then, in February, came the bombshell that 700 short-term contract employees would no longer be required; in March, we learned that a further 700 redundancies were required on site. Today, the news is that JDS Uniphase, formerly Sifam, is going to lay off people in the fibre-optic industry in Torquay and Plymouth. Those devastating bombshells, together with foot and mouth, have highlighted the underlying fragility of the economy in south Devon. For years our dependence on one industry, tourism, was effectively shifting to dependence on one employer.
However, I must tell the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, the House and people outside that it is not all doom and gloom. Torbay is in a magnificent, attractive environment and we have good schools and a

skilled labour force. We even have a climate that is kinder than that in the rest of the country because we are on the gulf stream and surrounded by hills. In fact, we have all the factors necessary for those wishing to relocate or start a modern business everything is there for inward investors.
However two major factors are missing, which go back more than 100 years. Our strength was founded on tourism because of transport links using trains, and the investment in infrastructure. If I tell the Minister that no new hotels have been built in my constituency for more than 50 years, and contrast that with Mediterranean resorts, she will see the difference between the two areas. Most of our parks were constructed by the Victorians, as were our gardens and beach facilities. We have tried to develop a business park but, unfortunately and ironically, that was turned down because of poor transport links.
The previous Government de-trunked the A380, so responsibility for it now rests with the local authorities. Yet a bypass on that road has been talked about since 1957. One can travel from the north of Scotland all the way down to Newton Abbot on either a three-lane motorway or a two-lane dual carriageway, but then one has to crawl in and out of the Torbay conurbation, which is the second largest conurbation in Devon and Cornwall and the fourth largest conurbation in the south-west region, south of Bristol
Our rail links are vulnerable to coastal erosion at the seaside and flooding at the junction at Exeter. We have precious few through-train services from Torbay to other parts of the country Fifty years ago, there were several trains an hour to different locations around the country, which carried holiday visitors during the summer months, but today their journey has to be planned with almost military precision to meet connections from one end of the country to the other.
We also suffer from poor air links. There is no link between the south-west and Heathrow. The other week, I met a pharmaceutical company which is looking to site its European headquarters somewhere in the United Kingdom. It wants that site to be within an hour and a half of Heathrow because an executive flying long-haul from Japan does not want to travel far when he arrives. A Nortel Networks executive flying in from Canada wishing to fly to the south-west arrives at Heathrow, transfers to Gatwick, then has to get down to the south-west. The last part of the journey is often along the A380 crawler single-lane road.
May I thank the Minister, who has met me and given me some extremely helpful ideas? Indeed, she followed that up with a letter. However, we need to look at five factors. In an economy in a small constituency like Torbay, which is based on a small labour market, the effect of 1,400 redundancies is severe. We have a declining tourism industry, and also the worries caused by foot and mouth. That has a big impact on the amount of money that is circulating in the economy. We are, unfortunately, on the periphery of the United Kingdom, and that tends not to be recognised by government.
First, we need emergency assistance for all the businesses that are affected by foot and mouth. There is a fear that businesses that are deemed not to be rural might not qualify, but whatever is available to rural areas should be available to seaside resorts, given the way in which their businesses are being affected too.
Secondly, we need to consider council funding, which seems to lag behind that in other areas. There have been overspends on personal social services year after year, which is common among seaside resorts. They are magnets, and people move into them Perhaps the census will catch up, but it is the local authority's estimate that there are several thousand people resident within the council area who are not accounted for in terms of government grants. I emphasise the need for a revision of the standard spending assessment. If it were possible, I should also like a revision of our qualification for any form of assistance from government to ensure that we are not missing out on anything to which we may be entitled.
Thirdly, I would like a commitment to improve our transport links, and a recognition that we cannot do that ourselves. We are already suffering because insufficient money is made available to our local authority and other Government agencies. That limits our ability to do the big things that need to be done to improve transport links.
Fourthly, I would like to see the area become a priority for inward investment within the Government office of the south-west. The Minister helpfully suggested that she would pass on our plight to Invest. UK, and I hope that that has taken place. That should be backed up by our becoming a priority area within the Government office of the south-west for inward investment and regional development agency support.
Finally, I would like a sympathetic response from government agencies, and especially from the planning arm of the Government office of the south-west, when any proposals come from my area seeking to diversify our economy. A proposed business park was turned down three years ago by the planning office in Bristol because it said that we did not have the necessary transport links. If the project had gone ahead, it could have taken up some of the slack caused by the redundancies that have recently been announced. I know that the council is working on a revised and perhaps smaller business park, and there needs to be as much assistance as possible with that.
I am aware that Government cannot wave a magic wand in a global economy. I am well aware that decisions taken in other parts of the world can have an impact on our constituencies. However, we can surely have an expectation that when we have a problem, it will be recognised by Government, and that they will do all in their power to assist the area to get itself out of the problems in which it may find itself.
Even if the Government cannot wave a magic wand and say, "Yes, you can have a road here tomorrow," they could give a green light and say, for example, "We shall consider re-trunking the A380." It would help us to attract the inward investment that we desperately need if the inward investor knew that the infrastructure would be improved in future.
I look forward to the Minister's reply.

The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on his tenacity in securing the debate, on the vivid picture that he has painted of his constituency, and on the way in which it has moved from dependence on tourism to becoming one of the world's centres for high technology in manufacturing. The hon. Gentleman has set out the

difficulties that he and his constituents are now facing, given the global downturn, including the temporary but painful downturn in telecommunications and other parts of high-technology sectors. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, he and I have met and discussed and also corresponded on the situation caused by the job losses at Nortel and, as we learned today, at JDS Uniphase as well. As I told him previously, we are already in touch with Nortel and we will continue to do everything that we can to assist his constituents and the wider community who are affected by the closures.
As a member of the rural taskforce, I heard again at our meeting this morning of the impact of foot and mouth disease on a wide range of businesses right across Devon and Cornwall. The hon. Gentleman's comments about the impact, particularly on tourism businesses, confirms what we heard from the regional development agency and other colleagues at the rural taskforce meeting this morning.
Like all my colleagues, I very much regret the job losses that are taking place in Torbay and other parts of the country in the telecommunications sector in the UK. The problem is not unique to Nortel, nor is it unique to the United Kingdom. Almost every major company in the telecommunications sector is experiencing substantial restructuring and job losses. That has been a marked feature of the past couple of months and is a direct result of the sharp downturn in the global telecommunications market, which is particularly pronounced in the United States, with the fall in stock market valuations.
Today, as the hon. Gentleman said, there was a further announcement of site closures and job losses by JDS Uniphase in the UK, including the job losses at the company's Sifam operation in Torquay and the additional job losses at the two plants in Plymouth. Already, the Employment Service has been in touch with that company to offer advice and assistance, and the company is consulting with the work force on how the cuts will be achieved.
We have been closely in touch with Nortel Networks and the hon. Gentleman has met some of the company's representatives. They are clear that the job losses being suffered in Torbay and south Devon are due to the downturn in the American economy. However, even with those job losses, painful though they have been, Nortel remains a very important and successful employer in the wider Torbay area. Even after the earlier round of job losses, employment in the company as a whole stands at more than 4,000—twice the level in 1998. The reflects the strong growth that the company enjoyed in the intervening period.
I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that all the local agencies—the Employment Service, the Benefits Agency, the RDA and the Government office of the south west—have been working closely with Nortel and the local authority to establish exactly what help is needed and to ensure that it is delivered. On 1 February we granted major redundancy status, which means that the employees affected by redundancy have immediate access to Government job search and training programmes. We have extended that help and that status to cover all subsequent redundancies at Nortel in Paignton.
Devon Training for Skills bid on behalf of local partners for rapid response funding, and that funding of almost £200,000 was approved by the Department for Education and Employment on 3 April. Former


employees of Nortel are already benefiting. They are getting help in various forms, including further IT training to help them move into other parts of the labour market. That help will continue to be available to people for up to 12 months after they have been made redundant.
It is important to stress that the skills of the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be in high demand by other local employers. I understand that Nortel held a jobs fair on 5 March at which local employers, the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency offered help back into work, and that more such events will be held if there is demand for them.
When we met last month, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the skills of those employees, which is such a precious competitive asset, could provide an opportunity for potential inward investment into the UK. I assure him that the regional development agency has already been working closely with Nortel as part of what could be called its after-care programme for inward investors. Invest.UK is always in touch with inward investors wherever it can market existing facilities and skills within the United Kingdom. I have also specifically asked Invest.UK and the communication and information industries directorate within my Department to meet him to discuss Nortel and the wider aspects of marketing the attractions of Torbay, including both the climate to which he referred and the skills of the work force. I understand that a date is being fixed with some urgency for that meeting.
It is difficult at this stage to assess with any certainty the effect that the job losses will have on the wider economy in either the short or longer term. I understand that the Employment Service has received locally a total of 285 new claims for jobseeker's allowance from ex-Nortel employees, which compares with the loss of about 1,400 jobs. That may indicate that many other people have already found alternative employment locally or elsewhere.

Mr. Sanders: I think that the Minister will find that the reason for that figure is that a number of employees are now working shorter hours, so they are not going to the jobcentre to sign on. Although such people have not lost a whole job, the change means that less money is circulating in the local economy. If employees do not work full time, there is a longer-term impact, even if the number of employees remains fairly high on site.

Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I understand from the company that although it offered short-time working as a way of managing the reduction in head count that it needed without losing valued expertise completely, a number of staff opted for the voluntary severance package rather than for such work. I am not sure about the extent to which shorter-time working affected the total number of people who would be seeking other work.
I understand that employment at Nortel grew rapidly after 1998—I have referred to the figures—and that that accounted in part for strains in other sectors of the local labour market. The hon. Gentleman referred to unfilled vacancies in the tourism sector last Christmas, so it may be that people who have taken redundancy or who find

themselves with no alternative but to do so will be fairly rapidly absorbed into high-tech manufacturing with other employers or into other sectors in the region.
Let me make a slightly more general point. The Torbay area has access to a range of programmes to help the local economy and, in particular, to improve skills and employability. They include the new European objective 2 programme in the south-west, which is worth some £108 million in European grant money over seven years. They also include objective 3, the new deal and our new DTI enterprise grant for businesses. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Torbay is one of the South West regional development agency's five priority areas for regeneration. The agency has already agreed to invest more than £500,000 towards the development by Midas Construction of more than 6,000 sq m of factory units at Long road, Paignton. It is also working with Torbay council on regeneration proposals for Torbay's waterfront.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned at the end of his speech a number of specific factors that needed attention as part of the wider regeneration of the local economy. In particular, he mentioned transport. In relation to the A380, my understanding is that a bypass was not proposed in Devon county council's local transport plan, so it was not possible to consider funding for the project, of which I know that he is long standing supporter. I believe that the joint study that was commissioned by Devon county council and Torbay council concluded that a bypass could be delivered only in the medium term of 2006 onwards. However, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has arranged to meet my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport. I am sure that he will find him helpful in considering the way in which an effective transport structure strategy can be established with the help of the county council and, I hope, the regional development agency.
The first of the hon. Gentleman's five points dealt with support for businesses affected by foot and mouth disease. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who chairs the rural taskforce, has already announced a substantial package of Government support for a range of businesses in different sectors that have been affected by foot and mouth disease The majority are not agricultural.
We have significantly extended the small firms loan guarantee scheme. Although it is too early to predict its impact, inquiries about it are running at six times the normal rate. It will not help every business, but I hope that it will be useful to some that have been disastrously hit by the disease.
We have introduced a package of more generous rate relief for rateable values of up to £12,000. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told me this morning that the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise have already deferred £28 million of due payments on income tax and VAT. That proves that the Treasury agencies are fulfilling my right hon. Friend's pledge that businesses that genuinely struggle with cash flow because of the disease will receive sympathetic support from Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the current population of the area was genuinely reflected in the calculation for standard spending assessment. That is a matter for my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and I am sure that he will take it up directly with them.
I have dealt with inward investment, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He also referred to the business park. That is exactly the sort of investment that the regional development agency, the county council and other local partners can make. He rightly stressed that it needs the benefit not only of potential skilled workers—the area has them—but good transport links.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we greatly value Nortel as a major inward investor in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that it will remain committed to the area for many years and that its current activities do not reflect a weakened commitment to the United Kingdom or Paignton. They are simply the inevitable but painful result of a global downturn in the sector.
I also assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to do all that we can with the local agencies to ensure that the individuals who are affected by redundancy receive all possible help to get new jobs quickly. We shall continue to support the area to carry on creating the conditions for sustained economic and social success.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I adjourn the House, it may be helpful if I tell the hon. Gentleman that I have enjoyed many holidays in Torbay, which is a very friendly place.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Deferred Division

ROAD TRAFFIC (S.I., 2001, No 561)

That the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 561), dated 26th February 2001, a copy of which was laid before the House on 28th February, be revoked.

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 282.

Division No. 194]



AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gray, James


Allan, Richard
Green, Damian


Amess, David
Greenway, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Grieve, Dominic


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hague, Rt Hon William


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Baker, Norman
Hammond, Philip


Baldry, Tony
Harris, Dr Evan


Beggs, Roy
Hawkins, Nick


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Heald, Oliver


Bercow, John
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Blunt, Crispin
Horam, John


Body, Sir Richard
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Boswell, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brady, Graham
Jenkin, Bernard


Brake, Tom
Johnson Smith,


Brand, Dr Peter
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Brazier, Julian
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Breed, Colin
Keetch, Paul


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Browning, Mrs Angela



Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Key, Robert


Burnett, John
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Burns, Simon
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Burstow, Paul
Lansley, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Letwin, Oliver


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Lidington, David


Chidgey, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Chope, Christopher
Livsey, Richard


Clappison, James
Loughton, Tim


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Luff, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
McCrea, Dr William


Collins, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cotter, Brian
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cran, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Madel, Sir David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Mates, Michael


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Day, Stephen
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Donaldson, Jeffrey
May, Mrs Theresa


Duncan, Alan
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Moore, Michael


Evans, Nigel
Nicholls, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Norman, Archie


Fallon, Michael
Oaten, Mark


Fearn, Ronnie
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Flight, Howard
Öpik, Lembit


Foster, Don (Bath)
Ottaway, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Garnier, Edward
Paterson, Owen


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gibb, Nick
Prior, David


Gidley, Sandra
Randall, John


Gill, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Rendel, David






Robathan, Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Thompson, William


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Ruffley, David
Tredinnick, David


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Trend, Michael


St Aubyn, Nick
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Sanders, Adrian
Tyler, Paul


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tyrie, Andrew


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Richard
Walter, Robert


Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)
Waterson, Nigel


Skinner, Dennis
Webb, Steve


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wells, Bowen


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Soames, Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Spring, Richard
Willetts, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Steen, Anthony



Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stunell, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Swayne, Desmond
Yeo, Tim


Syms, Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tapsell, Sir Peter





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Alexander, Douglas



Allen, Graham
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)



Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clelland, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Clwyd, Ann


Austin, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bailey, Adrian
Coleman, Iain


Barnes, Harry
Colman, Tony


Barron, Kevin
Connarty, Michael


Battle, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bayley, Hugh
Cooper, Yvette


Beard, Nigel
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Begg, Miss Anne
Corston, Jean


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Crausby, David


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cummings, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Benton, Joe
Dalyell, Tarn


Berry, Roger
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Best, Harold
Darvill, Keith


Betts, Clive
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dawson, Hilton


Borrow, David
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)
Denham, Rt Hon John


Bradshaw, Ben
Dismore, Andrew


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Donohoe, Brian H


Browne, Desmond
Doran, Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Dowd, Jim


Burden, Richard
Drown, Ms Julia


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Efford, Clive


Casale, Roger
Ennis, Jeff


Caton, Martin
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Cawsey, Ian
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Chaytor, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)





Gapes, Mike
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gardiner, Barry
Lock, David


Gerrard, Neil
Love, Andrew


Gibson, Dr Ian
McAvoy, Thomas


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCabe, Steve


Goggins, Paul
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Golding, Mrs Llin



Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Jane (Reading B)
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McFall, John


Grocott, Bruce
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Grogan, John
McIsaac, Shona


Gunnell, John
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hain, Peter
McNulty, Tony


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
MacShane, Denis


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hanson, David
McWalter, Tony


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McWilliam, John


Healey, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mallaber, Judy


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hendrick, Mark
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heppell, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hesford, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Merron, Gillian


Hill, Keith
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hinchliffe, David
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hoey, Kate
Miller, Andrew


Hood, Jimmy
Moffatt, Laura


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hope, Phil
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Howells, Dr Kim



Hoyle, Lindsay
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hutton, John
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Illsley, Eric
O'Hara, Eddie


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Olner, Bill


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jamieson, David
Pearson, Ian


Jenkins, Brian
Pendry, Rt Hon Tom


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Perham, Ms Linda


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pond, Chris


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pound, Stephen


Joyce, Eric
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kemp, Fraser
Quinn, Lawrie


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rammell, Bill


Khabra, Piara S
Rapson, Syd


Kidney, David
Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)



Kingham, Ms Tess
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lammy, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Laxton, Bob
Ruane, Chris


Lepper, David
Ruddock, Joan


Leslie, Christopher
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Levitt, Tom
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Salter, Martin


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Savidge, Malcolm


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Sawford, Phil


Linton, Martin
Sedgemore, Brian






Shaw, Jonathan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Sheerman, Barry
Steinberg, Gerry


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Stevenson, George


Shipley, Ms Debra
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Temple—Morris, Peter


Soley, Clive
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Timms, Stephen


Squire, Ms Rachel
Todd, Mark





Touhig, Don
Watts, David


Trickett, Jon
White, Brian


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Wood, Mike


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Woodward, Shaun


Tynan, Bill
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ward, Ms Claire
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Wareing, Robert N
Wyatt, Derek

Question accordingly negatived.